March 22, 2010

Overbuilt And Oversold In California

The Voice of San Diego reports from California. “Mark Dykstra knows short sales well. He finished two last year, and is working on his third. He’d bought the Escondido house in 2001 for $630,000. When it was eventually valued at more than $1.4 million, he’d taken bad advice to take cash out to buy investment real estate at the top of the market in 2006. At the same time in 2008, he sustained a severe cut in salary at the law firm he worked at. His wife got cancer. Dykstra declared bankruptcy. But Dykstra didn’t want to leave the Escondido home in a cloud of smoke. ‘It’s a little embarrassing, to say the least, to have to short sell a property,’ he said. ‘We didn’t just want to walk away and leave everything.’”

“After about a year of negotiating with his lender and finding a buyer willing to pay about $700,000 for the home, Dykstra completed the short sale. The Eastlake investment home he’d paid about $600,000 for also sold short, to a buyer willing to pay about $300,000. Dykstra’s still waiting on one last sale for a condo in La Jolla he’s been trying to sell short for over a year and a half. The bank has threatened to sell the home at a foreclosure auction five or six times — and has postponed it each time.”

The LA Times. “Brenda Duchemin and her husband, Mohammad Ashraf (have) gone through foreclosures on two homes and are in danger of losing a third. Duchemin and Ashraf say they are anything but flippers. Had not both their health and the economy taken bad turns, they say, their finances would have been able to support their real estate investments.”

“The couple bought their Diamond Bar house for $550,000 in 2006, hoping to finance the purchase by selling their town home in Brea — a sale that never materialized, they say, because of the housing crash. The year before, they’d also bought a $340,000 home in Las Vegas as a retirement property, which they rented to a tenant until last year. At the time of the purchases, their only sources of income were workers’ compensation insurance payments and Social Security, but that wasn’t a problem for the lender.”

“They informed Washington Mutual in March 2008 that they were in trouble and asked for a modification on the Diamond Bar home, but tried to pay the mortgages on all three of their houses, missing a payment here, a payment there. They eventually lost the Brea town house and Las Vegas home to foreclosure, and both properties went up for auction last month. Duchemin and Ashraf say they are doing everything they can to keep their Diamond Bar house. If they are forced to move, the two don’t know where they’ll come up with a deposit for a new place — filing for bankruptcy has ruined their credit.”

“‘We can’t afford to stay in our home, but we can’t afford to move,’ Duchemin said.”

“‘It wasn’t unusual to allow folks to buy not only two homes but three, four or five,’ said Sean O’Toole, founder of data-tracking firm ForeclosureRadar. Because people thought the price of real estate would keep climbing, O’Toole said, they figured that the more homes they bought, the more they’d earn eventually.”

“‘In a lot of cases, you had folks in this gold rush mentality: ‘Real estate is going up, the more houses I buy, the more money I’ll make.’”

The Mercury News. “Foreclosures dropped 8 percent to 402 homes in Santa Clara County from January to February, reaching their lowest level in nearly a year. The trend was the same in San Mateo County, where foreclosures dropped 13 percent from January. In San Mateo County, 138 homes were foreclosed.”

“Nearly 1,000 people in Santa Clara County received notices of default from their lenders in February, a 25 percent jump and the biggest monthly increase in a year. San Mateo County saw a 32 percent increase in these notices. Notices of default were up nearly 20 percent in California, foreclosures down almost 12 percent and homes in the foreclosure process at near record levels. ‘The disconnect between delinquencies and foreclosure sales continues to widen,’ said O’Toole of ForeclosureRadar.”

“Dustin Hobbs, spokesman for the California Mortgage Bankers Association, said that when lenders take months and months to foreclose, it’s better for the housing market. ‘If all the properties that were delinquent went to foreclosure on expedited or even a normal timeline, that would cause massive damage to the economy and the housing market. It’s much better that lenders take advantage of every program available to them and give the borrower every chance to work something out.’”

“Leslie Martin, a meter reader for the city of San Jose, told the Mercury News last month that she was expecting to get a loan modification after a year of negotiations with Chase Bank, her primary lender. But a couple of weeks ago, the bank turned down her request. Now she’s thinking of joining the ranks of people in foreclosure limbo, not making mortgage payments and living in her condo until the bank actually sells it at auction. That may be a while. She has yet to receive a notice of default.”

“‘I’m guessing I have six months, minimum,’ Martin said.”

The Recordnet. “Short sales accounted for 40 percent of all San Joaquin County home sales in February. ‘Short sales are really big right now. We are seeing short sales approved in a shorter time,’ broker Stephanie Rodriguez said. ‘It’s nice to see short sales being encouraged, because it’s always a case where people just feel defeated to think they are going to spend years making payments on their house that isn’t worth it,’ Rodriguez said. ‘It was a bad investment, and they just want to get out from under it.’”

“Sales could increase if banks begin to release foreclosed properties on the market. The Wall Street Journal reported that banks were holding on to 645,800 foreclosed homes in January, a 4.6 percent increase from a month earlier. The industry calls this ’shadow inventory.’ ‘We are all still waiting on the banks to release their shadow inventory. The homes are there; they are just still releasing them in fits and spurts,’ Stockton PMZ Real Estate manager Ben Balsbaugh said.”

The Bakersfield Californian. “The Bakersfield area was the fifth worst residential real estate market in the nation in January based on mortgage delinquency rates, foreclosures and other signs of a deeply troubled housing market. Robert Savage, a broker with Bakersfield Property Solutions, said the ranking was probably inevitable with so much negative equity in town.”

“‘The bulk of the homes here, people owe more than their homes are worth,’ he said. ‘I’m regularly seeing homes selling for as little as a third of the last sale price. Not half. A third.’”

“The good news, Savage said, is banks seem to be loosening up a little on negotiating loan modifications and short sales. ‘They’re getting better about it,’ Savage said. ‘A short sale is not hopeless. I’d really rather see loan modifications than short sales, though. What needs to happen is something that will let people who are upside down, and will be for the next 20 years, stay in their homes.’”

The Union. “New building construction declined in Nevada County in 2009 and continued to plunge for the first 10 weeks of 2010. Building permits for construction in the unincorporated areas and Nevada City have been falling off steadily since the beginning of 2008, Building Department Director Brian Washko said. As in the rest of the United States, bank foreclosures are depressing both sale prices of existing houses and the incentive to build new, Washko added.”

“‘We have mostly (speculative) homes here and not a lot of tract building,’ Washko said. ‘If you can buy a nice, foreclosed home for $400,000, why would you pay $600,000 for a new one?’”

“‘You can’t build a house for what you can pick it up for right now,’ agreed Executive Director Barbara Bashall of the Nevada County Contractors Association. ‘There are some nice houses out there for sale.’”

The Record Searchlight. “Unemployment today is nearly 18 percent - a 20-year high - as roughly 3,000 construction jobs have been sucked from the area since the summer of 2006, when unemployment in Shasta County stood at 6.5 percent. Four years ago, 1,000 Shasta County residents worked in real estate. Today, that number has dwindled to about 600.”

“Shasta County bankruptcy filings jumped 31 percent to 1,111 in 2009 from 846 in 2008. Contractors and laborers who have gone bust because of the lack of jobs have fueled the spike in filings. ‘People say there is no industry here, but building was our industry, and the people doing the building were our middle class, our blue-collar workers,’ Redding real estate agent Skip Murphy said. ‘So to that extent, it (the housing bust) has been devastating here; it has rippled out to our service sector, which includes restaurants and waiters, our car dealers.’”

“‘It has never been more evident that we must revive the housing industry in order to revive California’s economy,’ California Building Industry Association CEO Liz Snow said in a statement that accompanied the trade group’s report.”

“Snow’s group has lobbied hard to bring back a state home buyers’ tax credit. Last year, California offered a $10,000 new home purchase credit to buyers, setting aside $100 million to fund the program. But demand was so great that the funds were exhausted in July, roughly eight months before the credit was scheduled to expire.”

“‘There is probably about $150,000 in sales taxes generated from building one house,’ said Jerry Wagar, managing partner of Ochoa & Shehan Builders Inc. in Redding. Ochoa & Shehan is building subdivisions like Summerfield Meadows, Bel Air Estates and Crown Meadows in Redding. ‘I think the industry needs to stabilize,’ Wagar said. ‘We overbuilt and oversold and now you have this incredible downturn. … I think if we have a reasonable growth rate, the economy will be more stable.’”

“In Redding, housing starts in 2009 fell to a 35-year low as a mere 94 single-family homes were permitted - an 87 percent plunge from the 720 permitted in 2005, which was the height of the boom. Allison Barnett, a legislative advocate for the California Building Industry Association, acknowledged that the number of vacant lots and abandoned housing projects are conspicuous across California.”

“‘It’s not that there isn’t any demand. It’s that people are hesitant. They are unsure about the economy,’ Barnett said. ‘I wouldn’t agree there is not a demand. I think people are just sitting on the sidelines, still a little fearful.’”

“However, Chico State University economist David Gallo questions the call for more building. ‘Are they saying we want to go back to 2005 and 2006 levels? … The question is whether the demand would support that,’ Gallo said. ‘If you’re just building houses that nobody needs, where is the economic benefit? You can’t sell them, so there is no income.’”

“Moreover, Gallo says, as housing values rise, equity goes up, people spend more, which creates the wealth effect - each $100 drop in housing values reduces annual retail spending by $6. ‘So the wealth effect doesn’t exist if prices don’t go up. And if you keep building, prices will go down,’ Gallo said.”

“Redding real estate agent Murphy also is dubious about the need for more new homes. ‘I think the bubble illustrated that we were building based on an unsustainable level. … You can’t return to that,’ Murphy said.”

“And the Great Recession has forced people to adjust and reassess their priorities. ‘Families have moved in together; they live with grandma; they have combined their income,’ Murphy said. ‘While there are probably more people moving into California than ever, they are living in fewer houses. So a lot of this projected demand seems really flawed.’”

From NPR. “One of the nuttier elements of the real estate boom has returned. Tess Vigeland explains. ‘Kelly Frambach and her husband, Andy, moved into their first home just a few months ago. She’s a 32-year-old office manager for a construction company; he’s 29 and works in tire repair. This California ranch-style home in Chino Hills, just east of Los Angeles, boasts three bedrooms and two baths, 1,200 square feet for them and their seven and nine-year-old kids. They started going to open houses back in mid-2008, just as the market was collapsing.”

“They paid $285,000 for it — ten grand over the asking price — with an FHA-backed 30-year mortgage. Kelly: ‘And we thought it would be easy, because there were sooo many houses for sale. That’s what everybody thinks, but every house we put an offer on, there were so many offers.’”

“Real estate bidding wars are back. Not to the point where buyers are literally throwing ever-higher checks at sellers — like they did five years ago. But in the state of California, 55 percent of all home sales last year were the result of multiple bids. The average number of bids on each home sale? Five, according to the California Association of Realtors.”

“Steve Goddard is their president. ‘People are seeing that the values are going up, and they want to, you know, jump on the bandwagon again.’”

“What we hear is that there are a gazillion homes out there with low prices. Buyer’s market! So what’s with the bidding wars? Chris Thornberg: ‘You might think to yourself, ‘Gee this seems almost paradoxical, what’s driving the show?’ The answer is government policy. The housing markets are being driven really by four things: Low interest rates, FHA lending, the Hope for Homeowners program and, of course last, but not least, is tax credit.’”

“Thornberg: ‘Those all conspired to create a frenzy in the market. In part by boosting demand, artificially, and in part by constraining supply, artificially.’”

“The constrained supply part of that equation, according to Thornberg, is that many lenders are taking their time putting foreclosed homes back on the market. And the government’s rescue programs are keeping people in homes that they’re never really going to be able to afford. So all that troubled housing stock that’s supposedly waiting to be snapped up? Not on the market. And that means fewer properties out there for buyers to fall in love with.”




RSS feed | Trackback URI

103 Comments »

Comment by Ben Jones
2010-03-22 09:09:41

‘What needs to happen is something that will let people who are upside down, and will be for the next 20 years, stay in their homes.’

It isn’t rational for people to pay for 20 years when they are upside down.

‘If you can buy a nice, foreclosed home for $400,000, why would you pay $600,000 for a new one?…You can’t build a house for what you can pick it up for right now’

Foreclosures at $400k? And if you can’t build a house for that amount, you are in the wrong business. Of course, the land is still too expensive, I’m sure.

‘She’s a 32-year-old office manager for a construction company; he’s 29 and works in tire repair. This California ranch-style home in Chino Hills, just east of Los Angeles…They paid $285,000 for it — ten grand over the asking price — with an FHA-backed 30-year mortgage.’

I’d say the odds these folks will be underwater are high. And what do people do in that situation?

‘Steve Goddard is their president. ‘People are seeing that the values are going up, and they want to, you know, jump on the bandwagon again.’

Just keep feeding the bears, CAR.

Comment by denquiry
2010-03-22 09:52:17

Don’t worry people. Obama took over health care. It will be only a matter of time before he takes over housing. Jobless people need health care and housing too.

Comment by Zeus Matuze
2010-03-22 14:49:57

‘It was a bad investment, and they just want to get out from under it.’”

That same thing happened to me. I put my entire 401k on “black” over at the Golden Hooter Casino and the little ball and I both ended up in the red. Does Mr. O have a czar that can help me retrieve my “investment”?

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 19:14:35

Will there be a Housing Reform Bill to follow Health Care Reform, which follows suit by requiring all Americans to purchase a home?

 
 
Comment by In Colorado
2010-03-22 10:35:03

She’s a 32-year-old office manager for a construction company; he’s 29 and works in tire repair.

So he makes $10/hr fixing flats at a gas station?

This is an interesting pattern I saw A LOT when I lived in So Cal, and I saw it as far back as 20+ years ago: The wife has a better job than hubby. And not better as in “she makes 80K and he makes 70K”, but more like “she has some skills and has a decent job, while he has next to no skills and earns little more than minimum wage.”

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-03-22 12:04:58

This is an interesting pattern I saw A LOT when I lived in So Cal, and I saw it as far back as 20+ years ago: The wife has a better job than hubby. And not better as in “she makes 80K and he makes 70K”, but more like “she has some skills and has a decent job, while he has next to no skills and earns little more than minimum wage.”

I’ve seen it in AZ too. And, from the dating world, I’ve seen it as well. Some guy who barely can add two and two becomes smitten with a much smarter gal, and, gag, she falls for him.

I used to live next door to such a situation, and I had to try not to laugh when she had to stop a conversation to explain a very simple concept to him. Sample: She used the word “aesthetic” in a sentence. His question: “Ess who?”

Just goes to show you that intellect doesn’t always mean good judgment.

Comment by Lenderoflastresort
2010-03-22 14:15:03

Reminds me of that 80’s new wave song, ” I like’em BIG and STUPID!” It was a girl band. Who did that anyway? Anybody know?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-03-22 14:30:42

Julie Brown was the artist. Got yer lyrics right here.

 
Comment by EggMan
2010-03-22 15:16:49

Julie Brown

 
Comment by oxide
2010-03-22 17:32:16

Should I be scared that people actually remember a song with a topic like that? (On the other hand, who doesn’t remember “Whip It”?)

 
Comment by Dale
2010-03-22 19:24:26

Julie Brown….. also sang “cause I’m a blonde” YouTube it. funny funny funny

 
 
Comment by WHYoung
2010-03-22 18:10:11

Not so different from a man with a bimbo.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by SoCal hubby
2010-03-23 12:02:21

I really don’t understand what your objection is to the situation. If the wife has a better education or higher salary than the husband, who cares? What matters is that the couple makes each other happy, and respects one another. A partner’s career is not usually a good predictor of that.

My wife has a Harvard physics PhD and I don’t mind saying she’s a hell of a lot smarter than I am. But we couldn’t be more happy. And I like to think that I compliment some of the areas that she’s not as strong in.

Money, or a trophy husband/wife does NOT equal happiness.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by edgewaterjohn
2010-03-22 11:21:11

“…jump on the bandwagon again…”

And so the mania lives on, at least with some. I’m serious when I say that the collective pysche is unable to contemplate a multi-year downturn that contradicts their expectations. Such people aren’t motivated to buy not by the recovery so much as they are just plain impatient and frustrated with the slow pace of reality.

Comment by DebtinNation
2010-03-23 00:11:35

I guess I would be in that category. I’ve tried being patient for the past 5 years, and to an extent been rewarded, but I’m also getting frustrated as we outgrow our rented condo with new baby. It’s like watching a glacier melt, this market.

Comment by CA renter
2010-03-24 02:55:20

We feel your pain, though we rent a SFH. Just want to get this over with already.

BTW, congratulations on the baby! :)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Hwy50ina49Dodge
2010-03-22 13:25:19

‘What needs to happen is something that will let people who are upside down, and will be for the next 20 years, stay in their homes.’

In Bakersfried? 20 years of suckin’ in pesticide dust while you munch on baby carrots?

BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! (fpss™) :-)

 
Comment by Wickedheart
2010-03-22 13:27:59

“‘She’s a 32-year-old office manager for a construction company; he’s 29 and works in tire repair. This California ranch-style home in Chino Hills, just east of Los Angeles…They paid $285,000 for it — ten grand over the asking price — with an FHA-backed 30-year mortgage.’

I’d say the odds these folks will be underwater are high. And what do people do in that situation?”

FHA loans are 3.5% down. We are again putting people in houses with little to no money down. What incentive is there to stay when you have nothing to lose? Is it a wonder FHA loans are going bad at an alarming rate?

 
Comment by jingle male
2010-03-22 15:38:59

Ben says, “I’d say the odds these folks will be underwater are high. And what do people do in that situation?”

They foreclose again!

We are seeing that in Sacramento. Two houses foreclosed in 2008 ($585,000 & $628,000) and sold to FHA buyers in May and Aug of 2007 for $324,000 & $345,000 respectively. 3% down.

Both houses are now listed as short sales for $275,000 & $299,000 respectively.

It just keeps getting worse. Every time I think we must be at the bottom, it drops another 5-10%! Augh.

Comment by sleepless_near_seattle
2010-03-22 17:27:56

Worse? Depends on perspective, I guess. That, to me, sounds like things are getting BETTER.

Comment by CA renter
2010-03-24 02:56:25

Amen, sleepless! :)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Captain Credit Crunch
2010-03-23 08:05:53

How did they get sold a year before they were foreclosed?

 
 
Comment by Don't Know Nothin About Buyin No House
2010-03-22 16:11:24

Thought-provoking and interesting compilation of information and thanks.

 
 
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-22 09:33:05

At the time of the purchases, their only sources of income were workers’ compensation insurance payments and Social Security, but that wasn’t a problem for the lender.

So another mortgage broker couldn’t see depending on disability payments wasn’t an appropriate backing for issuing a mortgage.

their white Maltipoo, Sugar, one of four dogs the couple keep segregated in various areas of their house because the pets fight.

It sounds like these people have problems dealing with reality. Pets should never fight amongst themselves. This shows bad training and management. Good luck renting an apartment big enough to segregate 4 dogs inside.

Comment by Silverback1011
2010-03-22 10:33:23

That was some astonishing real estate acquisitions based on that income. Basically, this is telling me that my husband & I, who actually have more solid income, should own at least $2.5m in properties, since we are so wealthy and able to take care of the monthly mortgage payments. GAG !

Also, maybe each dog should have its own house ?

Comment by bink
2010-03-22 14:18:22

But then one dog would have to take care of the squirrels!

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-03-22 14:33:11

You should’ve seen Heidi the dachshund when she finally caught up with the squirrel she was chasing. Been chasing the dang things for years and dang if they all didn’t run up the trees.

Well, Heidi got herself a mouthful of squirrel tail-fur and you talk about a perplexed dog. She had no idea what to do.

And, wouldn’t ya know it, the squirrel was more than happy to lose a bit of fur. He scampered up a nearby tree, much to Heidi’s chagrin.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-22 10:38:24

“‘It wasn’t unusual to allow folks to buy not only two homes but three, four or five,’…Because people thought the price of real estate would keep climbing, O’Toole said, ..

How could anyone originate a bad loan when there was no such thing as a bad property?

 
Comment by SDGreg
2010-03-22 10:59:32

“So another mortgage broker couldn’t see depending on disability payments wasn’t an appropriate backing for issuing a mortgage.”

Typical bubble loan. They didn’t need someone that could make the payments, just someone that could sign for the loan. Everyone gets paid that way, until someone doesn’t. Thanks Uncle Alan.

I’m not sure that would break my top ten of the least qualified buyers. My two favorite are the strawberry pickers and the Publix checker.

Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-03-22 11:14:31

You can’t discriminate on the basis of the source of income for a mortgage. Welfare, SSI, Disability, and so forth are legal and valid forms of income. I believe that’s Federal Law.

Comment by oxide
2010-03-22 12:25:56

What about discriminating based on the amount of income rather than the source? As far as I know, there’s no governmnt program that pays enough to buy a $550K house.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-22 13:08:47

That was my point. To buy a $550K house they need income of close to $200K. What the heck kind of government program pays that kind of money?

If there IS such a government program, it should be repealed immediately. And any congresscritter who voted for it should be hanged.

 
Comment by DebtinNation
2010-03-22 17:41:44

“As far as I know, there’s no governmnt program that pays enough to buy a $550K house.”

TARP comes to mind.

 
Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-03-22 17:49:43

Oh, sorry guys. I agree about congresscritters and hangings. Throw in the NAR, MBA, and the rest of the scum.

 
 
 
Comment by DennisN
2010-03-22 11:15:21

SDGreg,

How about the green-card house painter guy who bought my San Jose house for $670K back in 2006 with 103% financing?

Comment by pressboardbox
2010-03-22 11:49:06

He went ahead and sold it the the fruit-picker guy and his family for $850k is what I heard. We gotta keep that guy in that home! This is about the american dream, people!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-03-22 12:07:24

When I was growing up, we had a couple of dachshunds who got into vigorous disagreements at feeding time.

The solution? Put Heidi’s food bowl over here. And Max’s over there. Then monitor them carefully while they were eating, and, if Heidi finished first, keep her away from Max.

Worked pretty well most of the time, but Heidi occasionally made the sprint for Max’s bowl. Where Max was waiting, with his doggie-dukes up.

 
 
Comment by SDGreg
2010-03-22 09:46:12

‘What needs to happen is something that will let people who are upside down, and will be for the next 20 years, stay in their homes.’

Maybe the person making that statement assumes housing won’t be upside down for 20 years, but for anyone that bought near the peak, it will be and longer, longer than many of them will live.

“It isn’t rational for people to pay for 20 years when they are upside down.”

How many people stay at the same address for 20 years, upside down or not? I’ve had 10 different addresses in 22 years. While that probably makes me an outlier, how many people can or do stay in the same place for that long? While that might work for some people, for many more it would be a giant anchor with them strapped to the underside. This current economy is brutal enough. Why give someone the equivalent of an economic death sentence by tying them to an upside down house for 20 years?

Comment by wolfgirl
2010-03-22 10:11:57

We’ve been in the same house for 20 years, but before that we moved an average of every 18 months for 20 years. I’m ready to move. My SIL can’t understand it She’s lived in the same area her entire 67 years even though she has changed residencies.

 
 
Comment by nickinpa
2010-03-22 10:09:57

“In Redding, housing starts in 2009 fell to a 35-year low as a mere 94 single-family homes were permitted - an 87 percent plunge from the 720 permitted in 2005,

The first thing to do when you are in a hole is to stop digging. We should have this level of decline everywhere in home construction until the excess supply is worked off.

 
Comment by aqius
2010-03-22 10:34:07

” Now she’s thinking of joining the ranks of people in foreclosure limbo, not making mortgage payments . . ”

You just KNOW that statement, now gaining critical mass, is sending chills through wall street pigmen. Look for more self-serving regs.

(remember ol’ paulsons stern warning of ” don’t even think of walking away from your mortagage”)!?

enjoying the movie. with popcorn.

Comment by SDGreg
2010-03-22 11:23:33

Not too many are pure in all of this, and many of the lenders are among the least pure. At this point, most anything that moves the necessary correction along faster I consider a plus, especially given the lack of accountability at all levels.

 
 
Comment by Molly
2010-03-22 11:06:14

“‘It’s not that there isn’t any demand. It’s that people are hesitant. They are unsure about the economy,’ Barnett said. ‘I wouldn’t agree there is not a demand. I think people are just sitting on the sidelines, still a little fearful.’”

If people aren’t buying, regardless of the reason, then there isn’t any demand. It doesn’t matter if they can’t or just plain won’t.

My husband’s boss just bought two foreclosed homes…one to live in and one to fix up and flip. He totally overpaid (of course). Just goes to show that any idiot can be a boss.

Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-03-22 11:28:16

As a want to be buyer (cash) looking for a sensible REO to buy as a primary residence and final home, the flippers are irriating the cr*p out of me. They seem to be in the inner circle, and since the govt. canceled the FHA loan 90 day hold before flipping policy, it’s dried up the market for fairly priced REO’s in So Ca (in my area, at this time). Some of the property history reports look like The Price Is Right - fast, furious, and a cheap job at that. And don’t get me started on the revised price. OMG, it boils my blood.
I’ve concluded I need to work for an REO Agent to find a home. I’ll shower twice a day.

Comment by DebtinNation
2010-03-22 17:48:22

It’s a regular REO Speedwagon out there. ;-)

Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-03-22 17:54:07

LOL- good one.

I’m old enough to remember them :)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-22 21:14:55

There are plenty of REOs to go around, and more on the way. One article about “shadow inventory” posted recently numbered them at 900,000+ or so, iirc.

As I see it, banks can’t afford to sell them. Banks must first earn money before they can safely write off the losses from REO sales. The pipeline is so restricted that they’ve reached the point where they are reluctant to even foreclose.

So, if true, cash buyers who want to take advantage of a huge surplus inventory would want banks to earn plenty of money so they could afford to unload all those REOs.
But banks are not being encouraged to make lots of money.. in fact the trend is towards them being heavily regulated… being denied “proprietary trading” opportunities, for instance..

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 22:49:30

“As I see it, banks can’t afford to sell them. Banks must first earn money before they can safely write off the losses from REO sales.”

Perceived profit opportunities from holding on to falling knife real estate inventory notwithstanding, aren’t banks legally required to move REO after holding on to it for a certain length of time?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-03-22 23:17:56

From what I gather, banks cannot hold real estate for “investment” purposes, and such has been the law since the 1930’s. If regulators determine that REOs are being held for that purpose for any length of time, the bank would be forced to sell.

I don’t immediately grasp why such a regulation would be in effect and can’t find any solid info about it… probably has something to do with banks proving their penchant for being a bunch of obnoxious, socially dysfunctional, profit driven slumlords from hell after the Great Depression.

 
 
 
Comment by CA renter
2010-03-24 03:00:35

We feel your pain, awaiting. :(

 
 
 
Comment by pressboardbox
2010-03-22 11:09:34

“…say they are anything but flippers. Had not both their health and the economy taken bad turns…”

-Had not I been dealt the wrong cards, I would have won that hand!

Comment by palmetto
2010-03-22 11:38:51

You got that right. BTW, wasn’t meaning to get harsh with you, I enjoy your posts and I do understand what you were saying about the country. I’m just a bit grumpy (understatement) about the constant hammer and pound at American citizens, and the degradation of the society.

Comment by pressboardbox
2010-03-22 11:51:29

No offense taken, palmy. I know you are every bit as frustrated as I am with the handling of the “crisis”. Keep up the good posts.

 
Comment by oxide
2010-03-22 12:30:54

It’s okay palmy, I think we were all expecting a contentious day on the HBB.

Comment by palmetto
2010-03-22 14:46:10

I’m tellin’ ya, oxide. There’s an HBBer or two I’d like to eviscerate right about now, but I’m holding back. Pressboard is not one of them. I did understand what pressboard was getting at, I just can’t stand to see American citizens crapped on anymore.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by oxide
2010-03-22 15:10:21

Well, I’m glad it sounds like you don’t want to eviscerate me, since I know I’m pretty much a prime target. ♥

 
Comment by palmetto
2010-03-22 16:09:40

Aw, heck, oxide, ya know I luvz ya!

 
Comment by oxide
2010-03-22 17:35:58

:mrgreen: Opinions are good things if you back ‘em up with reasoning/data. Blind talking points, on both sides, are eviscerable.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 12:40:29

They sound to me like accidental flippers who got stuck with falling knife real estate investments.

 
Comment by sleepless_near_seattle
2010-03-22 17:50:11

That one stuck out for me too. Denial written all over it, no? The theme of blaming the economy that wasn’t seems like second nature to these types.

The economy didn’t take a bad turn. The “economy” is trying to purge the excess. Get things back to some sort of rational steady state. But these jokers think 2003-2007 were “normal.” Blech. No exuberance, no investment risks you normally wouldn’t take, no “bad economy.” Get it?

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2010-03-22 19:49:48

“The “economy” is trying to purge the excess.”

_Precisely_.

And it turns out that unfortunately for them, the excess that needed to be purged WAS them and their behavior.

Comment by sleepless_near_seattle
2010-03-22 21:09:11

thanks for wrapping that up and saying it better than I could.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by The_Overdog
2010-03-23 10:00:29

Well, at least with this new health bill thing passed yesterday, it’ll only be the economy holding them back and not their health.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 12:43:19

“Real estate bidding wars are back. Not to the point where buyers are literally throwing ever-higher checks at sellers — like they did five years ago. But in the state of California, 55 percent of all home sales last year were the result of multiple bids. The average number of bids on each home sale? Five, according to the California Association of Realtors.”

I remember how astonished I was when I learned about the California bidding war phenomenon, way back in 1999. I guess we should conclude that the market is back to normal again, now that the bidding wars are back?

Comment by Timmy Boy
2010-03-22 14:13:58

There’s a lot of investor “flip” money out there chasing the low-end market. This appears to put in a floor.. although, I believe that this floor is too high.. as compared to recent history.

We are in approx the same spot as 2003 prices… we should’ve corrected, if not over-corrected, to 1999 or so levels.

Time will tell if the “phantom inventory” phenomenon ever shows itself in reality.. along w/ artificially low interest rates.

The gov’t is throwing EVERYTHING at the housing market in order to keep it artificially inflated.

We will see how this works out over the next 12 months…???

Comment by Arizona Slim
2010-03-22 14:40:29

And, from my perch here in Tucson, the investor “flip” game seems to be playing out like this:

The iFlippers (catchy name, huh?) snap up a bunch of low-end properties, do a bit of cosmetic fixup, then put ‘em back on the market for a lofty new wishing price.

And there they sit. And sit.

So, the iFlippers come up with a Brilliant Plan B. They’ll rent the houses out Until The Market Improves.

Since there’s already quite a glut of other houses for rent, they’re on the wrong side of the market. And, since choosy renters have a lot to choose from, well, those houses just sit there even longer.

Then, finally, here come some tenants! And to heck with those credit and background checks, they’re warm bodies! Get their names on the lease!

Well, you can probably guess what happens next. Tenants trash the place. And, if the house is anything like that one around the corner that just got foreclosed and resold, “trash the place” doesn’t begin to describe the work that’ll be needed.

In the case of that house around the corner, the now-former tenants and/or their many friends removed all the copper. Which means that the new owners are in for one heckuva re-plumbing job. And did I mention that the former owner who’d been foreclosed on was a flipper?

Comment by DebtinNation
2010-03-22 17:52:21

This whole bubble reminds me of the game Tetris; the lower levels get clogged up and stuff piles up on top of that, and then some levels get cleaned out and the bottom drops out again.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by CA renter
2010-03-24 03:03:50

Nice analogy.

 
 
 
Comment by awaiting wipeout
2010-03-22 15:04:38

Timmy Boy,
I heard that the banks are redoing the shadow inventory, replacing sinks, copper wiring, replacing dated kitchens, making nice, their own “flip” upgrades, if you will. I don’t mind a fair ROI, but something tells me that’s like believing this is still America.

I am so frustrated. Why can’t us real buyers get a break? How long can they extend and pretend?

Comment by Timmy Boy
2010-03-22 15:31:15

They are trying to break you.

It’s the ol’ Mexican stand off…. who can wait longer without blinking??

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Little Al
2010-03-22 16:46:27

You’re exactly right, but everyone on this blog agrees that we won’t see the truly killer deals until the ‘11-’13 time range. You know, eventually momma calls all the little boys home to dinner, even the chollos.

 
 
Comment by Lenderoflastresort
2010-03-22 16:04:30

Forever.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Rental Watch
2010-03-23 09:22:21

Taking prices out of the discussion PB, CA has a chronic supply shortage of housing.

Waiting for flames…

The main issues is obtaining entitlements (obtaining entitlements is quite difficult, lengthy, expensive and uncertain). I am familiar with a project that was in a City’s general plan to be housing from the 80’s (not a controversial use for the location). The developer has been trying to get it entitled to actually enable the envisioned use for almost 10 years. There are no environmental or other issues with the site.

Now to continue–in the 90’s, California added 4 million people to population, and built 1 million housing units.

At the peak of development in the ’00s (2005/2006), California was just keeping up with population growth. There was no eating into the deficit left from the 90’s lack of development. Subsequently, development almost stopped, making matters worse, since population did not stop growing in the meantime.

The facts are population growth vs. housing construction, but the result manifests itself in several places:

1. Average household size (which is pretty large relative to the rest of the US);
2. Vacancy rates, which are also pretty low relative to the rest of the country; and
3. Bidding wars when people can afford a home (combination of income and finance), the original topic of your comment.

There is a reason prices rose in CA as much as they did. The tinder of the housing bubble in CA was the supply/demand imbalance. The spark was easy credit. Fuel adding to the fire was speculators entering the market after they saw prices consistently rise.

Folks expect home prices to fall further in CA. I don’t, except for the higher end, which are still not affordable given the salaries of the people who try to buy them, with available finance in the market for those homes.

Comment by CA renter
2010-03-24 03:05:42

Good post, Rental Watch.

Agree with you about the housing shortage in the desirable areas of California.

 
 
 
Comment by MacAttack
2010-03-22 15:20:31

“‘There is probably about $150,000 in sales taxes generated from building one house,’ said Jerry Wagar, managing partner of Ochoa & Shehan Builders Inc. in Redding.

Really, Jerry? How do you figure?

Comment by pismoclam
2010-03-22 17:00:03

It’s the ‘Real NEW Math’. No way. Closer to $25 grand depending on the velocity of money.

 
Comment by combotechie
2010-03-22 19:45:02

California has something like an 8.5% sales tax rate (ballpark figure). To generate $150,000 of sales tax revenue roughly 1.8 million dollars of retail sales need to happen.

So, how does the building of one house translate into 1.8 million dollars of retail sales?

 
 
Comment by Renting in Newport
2010-03-22 18:10:05

I’ve got to be honest Ben, I find today’s California posting incredibly depressing. I’m sure none of you know me, but I know you all. I visit this blog every day, often multiple times per day. I’ve posted a few times…but I guess you could call me a lurker. Anyway…bidding wars are back. How depressing. Shadow inventory is not moving through the python. How depressing. People are living without paying their mortgage for years, while I continue to rent and try to do the “right” thing. How depressing.

Oh well…as long as I’m posting…let me be a voice in strong favor of the health care initiative that passed last night. I keep reading all you anti-Obama folks, anti-universal health-care rants, and I just don’t agree at all. Last night was a great night for America.

I come to the Housing Bubble Blog because of the diversity of opinions and backgrounds. I’m glad that there are those here who hate Obama and Democrats, although to be honest, I’m getting a little sick of reading all the political bashing. I prefer to feed my ongoing obsession with the housing bubble with information that we can all agree upon.

Comment by Ben Jones
2010-03-22 18:29:31

Well, I have to admit I find that curious. I can’t imagine getting depressed over anything that happens in the housing market, or politics for that matter. Not that I am immune to such things, but long ago, I noticed that every time I was feeling down or sorry about things, I would see someone who had real problems, and realized that as long as I had my health, etc, I didn’t have it too bad.

CA Renter has been pointing out this bidding thing for a while, and I have posted a lot on how 2008 sales in Stockton, for example, were at one point higher than during the mania’s peak. A lot of this is probably investors. And if the property doesn’t cash flow, guess what “investors” do when they realize an uptick isn’t coming?

This is all part of the housing bubble story, IMO. Thornberg made it clear in the NPR report that this period can be attributed to the government intervention. Is it right? I’d say no. Will it fail and make things worse? You decide. But like I said in Vegas last year, I keep blogging because the story keeps changing, and this is a part of that.

FYI, me and some other posters have started seriously working on the shadow inventory collusion series. We are contacting the FDIC and others and beginning to try and crack open the media silence on the issue. If I’m right, we have these guys right where we want them. So hang in there, and keep your chin up.

Comment by exeter
2010-03-22 19:03:46

:thumbs up: to you my brother Ben.

 
Comment by pismoclam
2010-03-22 20:21:43

Ben, here’s a question: suppose I’m a lender with a bunch of REOs. Why would I sell them at market now, when I would show a loss and have to increase my capital?The Fed would be writing black marks on me. I could keep them, keep accruing interest and charging service fees even with no cash flow and NO black marks from the Fed? Simple answer: Don’t do anything except wait for the market to come back. Even if 10-20 years. I don’t lose my job at the bank and keep my goodies

Comment by Ben Jones
2010-03-22 21:07:56

‘Why would I sell them at market now, when I would show a loss and have to increase my capital.

There are regulations that restrict banks from holding REOs.

‘The Fed would be writing black marks on me’

This is more of a FDIC thing than the Fed.

‘when I would show a loss and have to increase my capital’

They should have to show a loss when the loan becomes non-performing, and write it down from there as the value falls. We intend to pursue the issue of TARP funds and capital requirements regarding foreclosures as well.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 22:46:11

“There are regulations that restrict banks from holding REOs.”

Maybe that explains why banks are dragging their feet with respect to foreclosing on owners who stopped paying their mortgages long ago? Once the bank takes back REO, they cannot hold on to it forever.

“They should have to show a loss when the loan becomes non-performing, and write it down from there as the value falls.”

I agree. But are banks being held to normal accounting standards these days? My sense is that they are not.

 
Comment by scdave
2010-03-23 05:16:46

My sense is that they are not ??

Yep…IMO, thats why it is a slow dribble of REO inventory being placed on the market…

 
Comment by CA renter
2010-03-24 03:11:18

Exactly, PB.

I think the greater part of “shadow inventory” is being kept hidden by not issuing NODs on defaulting mortgages. They are trying to keep everything out of the public’s view, IMHO.

 
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 20:27:35

“FYI, me and some other posters have started seriously working on the shadow inventory collusion series.”

I used to enjoy harping on that theme, then tired of it. But it does my heart a load of good to learn that Ben and others are seriously pursuing this issue. I hope we can eventually restore a rule of law in the American financial system, and rooting out collusion would be a great first step in that direction.

Comment by Jimmy Jazz
2010-03-23 11:10:18

I am convinced that the collusion starts with the government regulators. It was the unspoken half of TARP: take these millions to tide you over and just start dribbling out your REO. It would be illogical if this WASN’T the case given that all of the other government programs are aimed at keeping values artificially high.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by bulwark
2010-03-23 21:54:28

You ought to get in touch with the Attorneys General in those states where collusion is the greatest. The banks have jointly agreed with the Fed not to foreclose, thus restricting the free market for their own financial gain. The Fed may be immune from an antitrust violation, but not the banks.

 
 
Comment by jbunniii
2010-03-22 18:29:43

No matter how hard it tries, the government cannot prop up house prices forever.

Meanwhile, as long as it remains far cheaper to rent than to own, enjoy the freedom of NOT owning (not having to do any maintenance, ability to move if desired) and bank the difference.

We ARE going to end up on the winning side, of that I have no doubt.

The clowns buying today will be tomorrow’s underwater suckers, especially those with the 3.5% FHA downpayments.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 20:22:54

“We ARE going to end up on the winning side, of that I have no doubt.”

I have no doubt we collectively will end up on the winning side of financial history. However, individual opportunities may slip away as years of bubble unwinding play out. Not that I care that much, but the kind of home I would have bought back before the bubble burst no longer would work for my little household; we are soon going to downsize with a child headed off to college. By the time the bubble winds down, we might be really ready to downsize, say to empty nest size housing. But it’s all good — better to rent during the child rearing years than to sink your nest egg into falling knife real estate.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 20:24:43

“Shadow inventory is not moving through the python.”

Something to look forward to: Eventually the python will have to take a crap. This may be one of the most titillating experiences to behold of your entire life! Stay tuned…

 
Comment by scdave
2010-03-23 05:11:38

with the housing bubble with information that we can all agree upon ??

That would be no fun… :)

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 19:11:07

There was a fascinating interview with Jim Rogers on today’s BBC Business Daily show.

The synopsis:

1) China is in a real estate bubble which could pop any day now.
2) Chinese authorities are trying to slowly unwind it, but such efforts often fail.
3) Their bubble isn’t as bad as the U.S. bubble, since they did not abandon lending standards to the extent we did.
4) Despite the potential for short term setbacks, like bursting property bubbles, China is still a good long-term investment prospect.

What he may have missed: Bubble money from the U.S. that flowed back into Chinese real estate. This could have come from a combination of easy U.S. money that made its way into Chinese real estate (e.g. I personally know a guy who set up myriad CRE “deals” for CA clients interested in a piece of the action in Beijing’s property market) and dollars the U.S. spent on Chinese exports which ended up invested in property. In short, the Fed’s liquidity flood likely provided plenty of credit to finance Chinese real estate purchases.

Jim Rogers on China
Mon, 22 Mar 10

Duration:
19 mins

Lesley Curwen talks to Jim Rogers, who used to be the partner of another legendary financier, George Soros. Nowadays he runs his own investment business in Singapore and is one of the greatest enthusiasts for China’s economy and admits that its property bubble may burst and it could be this year. But he argues that won’t stop China’s progress.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 20:06:43

“They informed Washington Mutual in March 2008 that they were in trouble and asked for a modification on the Diamond Bar home, but tried to pay the mortgages on all three of their houses, missing a payment here, a payment there. They eventually lost the Brea town house…”

I learned on a class field trip with my son that Brea is Spanish for ‘tar’ — in fact, ‘La Brea Tar Pit’ literally means ‘The Tar Tar Pit.’

Judging from the saber tooth tiger and woolly mammoth skeletons we saw on the field trip, I suppose sinking in Brea might be even worse than being underwater?

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 20:11:27

“‘It wasn’t unusual to allow folks to buy not only two homes but three, four or five,’ said Sean O’Toole, founder of data-tracking firm ForeclosureRadar. Because people thought the price of real estate would keep climbing, O’Toole said, they figured that the more homes they bought, the more they’d earn eventually.‘In a lot of cases, you had folks in this gold rush mentality: ‘Real estate is going up, the more houses I buy, the more money I’ll make.’”

Persistent post-bubble mysteries:

1) How many people bought two, three, four or even ten houses back when everyone believed that ‘real estate always goes up’?

2) Where are all those extra investment homes, now that the real estate bubble has popped?

3) Now that the Fed has succeeded in convincing the sheeple that real estate will always go up again, are greater fools and flippers responding by purchasing multiple houses, just as they did in the pre-2005 period?

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 20:16:07

“Sales could increase if banks begin to release foreclosed properties on the market. The Wall Street Journal reported that banks were holding on to 645,800 foreclosed homes in January, a 4.6 percent increase from a month earlier. The industry calls this ’shadow inventory.’

They do? I thought bloggers called this ’shadow inventory.’ It was a hot topic here long before the bubble burst.

P.S. A one-month increase of 4.6 percent occurs at an annualized rate of
(1.046^12-1)*100 = 71.5 percent. Sounds like the shadow inventory avalanche risk may be rapidly building up.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 20:18:43

“Unemployment today is nearly 18 percent - a 20-year high - as roughly 3,000 construction jobs have been sucked from the area since the summer of 2006, when unemployment in Shasta County stood at 6.5 percent. Four years ago, 1,000 Shasta County residents worked in real estate. Today, that number has dwindled to about 600.”

I used to play in an orchestra that rehearsed and performed in Redding (Shasta County, CA). I have a vivid memory of the cute oboe player whose day gig was selling real estate. She seemed confident back in 2003 that the big runup in their home prices was going to continue indefinitely. I wonder how she is doing, now that California real estate only goes down?

Comment by Bad Chile
2010-03-22 20:29:36

Wonder if she’s still cute. And can still play the oboe?

(snicker).

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 22:40:23

I’m guessing “yes” and “yes” (I’m not that old, and I would guess she is a good fifteen years younger than I am…).

 
 
Comment by Bluto
2010-03-22 21:56:34

the Redding story was really interesting, have always had family there so have been visiting occasionally since the ’60’s and never understood how big the town had gotten in the last decade or so…this confirms some of what I suspected…

 
 
Comment by are they crazy
2010-03-22 20:23:49

All these people that bought investment homes and then whine when the economy, their age, or their health takes a nose dive. What about the old basics like having a years worth of living expenses put aside, emergency funds for medical problems or home repairs, retirement funds, etc.? This whole ownership society wasn’t well thought out. The vast number of the general public that are educated and financially sound enough to actually invest is minimal IMHO. And people that are putting aside money in 401Ks without even matching funds, while paying outrageous interest on credit card debt is insane. It’s my usual rant - people need stop blaming the banks and government, look in the mirror and start living a financially responsible lives.

 
Comment by rms
2010-03-22 22:09:06

That Redding, CA piece in the Record Searchlight is must-read!

The comments that follow are reassuring too; lots of folks out there know the recovery isn’t about to happen anytime soon. Great find there, Ben.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-03-22 22:39:09

‘Are they saying we want to go back to 2005 and 2006 levels? … The question is whether the demand would support that,’ Gallo said. ‘If you’re just building houses that nobody needs, where is the economic benefit? You can’t sell them, so there is no income.’

An economist who is actually speaking about economic reality? Sacrilege!

 
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