June 21, 2013

Poor Judgment, Greedy Excess And Quick-Buck Ambition

It’s Friday desk clearing time for this blogger. “Home sales and prices continued to climb in May, raising the prospect of a new housing bubble unless there is a significant increase in home building. ‘The home price growth is too fast, and only additional supply from new homebuilding can moderate future price growth,’ said Lawrence Yun, the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. The warnings about prices rising too fast were a stark change from the Realtors’ position during the heyday of the housing bubble, when the statement from officials generally cheered the steady rise in prices.”

“Colorado’s hot real estate market has put some buyers in the prickly position of having to decide just how much they’re willing to pay for a property — even if it means paying more than it’s currently worth. That leaves some wondering whether a new mini-bubble is inadvertently being created, putting extra pressure on appraisers who’ve already been beaten down with part of the blame for the prior housing bubble.”

“‘One seller had a buyer who literally wrote an escalation clause into their offer, beating any other offer up to $30,000 over the list price,’ said Jolon Ruch, president-elect of the Colorado Association of Realtors.”

“Leslie and Scott Tyree backed out of a contract in 2011 to buy a weekend place in Hilton Head, South Carolina, fearing they’d be anchored to a sinking market for second homes. This year, the West Virginia couple pounced on a listing in the same resort town without visiting the property. They bought the two-bedroom condominium in an oceanfront golf resort for $429,000 in April. ‘We knew several other people were looking at it and it wouldn’t last long,’ said Leslie Tyree.”

“Can real estate investors flip homes successfully through the second half of 2013 without flipping out of business, or are the evolving markets on both the southeast and southwest coasts increasingly perilous for quick-buck ambition? Although the process came to symbolize poor judgment and greedy excess during the recessionary years between 2006 and 2009, that’s changed significantly. ‘First off,’ says Rick Shaffner, a partner in a consortium of five investors who own about 300 rental properties on the southwest coast, ‘I wouldn’t call it ‘flipping’ — that’s a derogatory term.’”

“In 2009 they started out paying about $35 a square foot for homes in Lehigh Acres and Cape Coral. Now they’re paying about $55, and their bet is that values will go up to about $75 per square foot. And that’s when they might sell significant numbers of their 300-plus rental properties, he says. ‘I don’t have somebody else giving me a paycheck. So I wake up every morning unemployed, and figure out a way to create income,’ he said.”

“It’s no secret that the rich investor class is buying up properties in cities around the world, including Vancouver. But if we look at the numbers we do have, things just don’t add up. For example, we have the highest average house price in the country, and yet average income is lower than most major Canadian centres. If you look at the numbers, Vancouverites are simply too poor to afford real estate. In some areas, it’s astonishing that we even try.”

“The average income in Metro Vancouver in 2009, was only $41,176, according to Canada Revenue Agency statistics. In Vancouver proper, we are getting by on $43,911. With the average selling price of a detached house in Vancouver at $1.116-million, the incomes do not jibe. ‘It doesn’t make sense when you look at income numbers,’ says researcher Andy Yan. ‘We are not a wealthy city.’”

“A survey did by the Beijing Police last year showed the city has 13.2 million units of houses, of which 3.8 million are confirmed vacant, putting its housing vacancy rate at 28.9%, leaving the public in shock and disbelief. Meanwhile, vacancy rates of newly-built houses are generally higher than 33.3%, said the survey. High vacancy rate in newly-built houses is also believed to be a major force behind rising house prices despite the Chinese government’s repeated cooling measures including purchase restraints to curb price hikes.”

“Beijing’s largest district Chaoyang in 2010 released figures showing that a total of 1.33 million square meters of residential space are vacant and 54.9% of homes have been empty for at least three years.”

“The average asking price of a property in London has increased by more than £30,000 since the start of 2013, according to figures from property website Rightmove, and is now comfortably through the half-a-million pound mark, at £515,243. It sounds a lot, but in some parts of the capital it is small change. The property boom i Mayfair, Knightsbridge, the West End, Kensington & Chelsea, and Holland Park – has been extraordinary. The average price of a PCL home is now £1.53m.”

“It may seem that the only way is up, but politicians, retailers and even estate agents are warning that expensive homes are creating soaring rents, an exodus of small shops and a ghost town atmosphere, and that the market could turn out to be a bubble. ‘More and more stats and anecdotes indicate that ‘Fortress Central London’ is emptying of residents,’ says Ed Mead of Douglas & Gordon, an estate agency with 11 branches across the capital. Parts of PCL fail the neighbourhood test of having milk and newspapers on sale within a short walk of where people live. ‘Why should owners care? They’re never here to need them,’ Mead says.”

“One of the reasons so many homes lie empty is that house prices have been rising rapidly, meaning capital appreciation is so high there is little incentive for some investors to let their property. ‘Take a flat worth about £850,000 a year ago. That’s worth £950,000 now,’ Mead says. ‘The capital growth alone is equivalent to almost £2,000 a week and there’s no wear and tear.’ He believes some investors purchase new-build apartments only to ‘bubble wrap and sell in pristine condition at some point in the future.’”

“Auckland’s property-market circus is a golden opportunity for speculators as home buyers feel the squeeze. So with immigrants and investors swarming to Auckland from parts of the world where property speculation is rife, the recipe is set for a party. Apparently Asians are 40 per cent of buyers in Auckland and all buying three or more houses. Sometimes we gear-up but our appetite for multiple houses isn’t fully dependent on the supply of credit - not as much as it is for those desperate to start on the property-owning path.”

“And so long as those desperadoes are in the market, forced to Auckland because of the job market and desperate and able to buy, courtesy of large dollops of credit courtesy of their banks, then it’s like babies to the slaughter. I’ll have five houses please - it’s a certainty prices will rise, profits are all tax free, gearing available to amplify my gains - oh it’s all too much, why bother with the day job. And the more the merrier, this bubble is so much fun.”

“Residential rentals in posh areas of Mumbai, Delhi and Bangalore have dropped by around 25 percent. Demand for rented homes in Mumbai’s popular localities are also down by half in the last one year, according to a report in the Economic Times. When rental yields do not appreciate in proportion to the capital value, it means the property is overvalued. Pankaj Kapoor, MD at real estate research firm Liasas Foras, cites the example of Napean Sea Road, one of South Mumbai’s posh localities, where properties are being sold at Rs 50,000 a square foot in the secondary market from its peak of Rs 80,000 last year!”

“Another reason for lower rentals is the sudden influx of new supply in the luxury market. ‘Seeing dollars in luxury housing, several builders adopted the ‘me too’ approach, but only a handful are flourishing, while others are struggling to survive,’ adds Kapoor. Little wonder that investors who bought these projects are now willing to offer discounts on rentals, as there are no buyers for these projects anymore.”

“We’ve heard that the housing market is getting better, but underwater homes are still a big problem here in the valley. Those homeowners remain stuck with few, if any, options. For the Picazos, home ownership has led to stress, frustration and desperation. ‘We had no idea about the bubble,’ says Mike Picazo.”

“The housing bubble popped soon after the couple bought a modest 3-bedroom home in west Phoenix in 2005. They’ve been underwater for the last several years. Today the Picazos’ 3-bedroom home appraises for about $66,000. Back in 2005, the couple paid $165,000. ‘We’re tired. It’s taken a toll. Our family, its stressful, it is stressful,’ he said. ‘With it being $100,000 upside down, I was pretty upset, pretty upset,’ says Beatriz Picazo.”

“Despite the comeback in home values over the last year, the Business Journal reports that nearly one-third of all mortgages in the state remain underwater. ‘One of three homeowners that have a mortgage are upside down, and they’re getting that feeling that they’re alone again, because they’re hearing its good news week, and they’re 50, 70, 100 thousand dollars upside down,’ says Marge Peck of Peck Team Realty.”




RSS feed

43 Comments »

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-06-21 05:36:11

“In 2009 they started out paying about $35 a square foot”

That’s right about what a used house is worth.

Comment by Bad Andy
2013-06-21 07:28:58

In Lehigh Acres I would give you that much.

Comment by Bad Andy
2013-06-21 07:30:01

…Should have said wouldn’t give you that much. Not enough coffee this morning.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-06-21 08:37:02

I figured that is what u meant.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Beer and Cigar Guy
2013-06-21 05:41:00

“‘The home price growth is too fast, and only additional supply from new homebuilding can moderate future price growth,’ said Lawrence Yun, the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors.”

Well actually, no. The rapid implosion of Bubble 2.0 will also moderate future price growth. It will also be excruciatingly painful and financially devastating to a number of people, but hey- the world needs cannon fodder too and this is the choice they willingly made. I have no more empathy for their greed.

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-06-21 13:40:46

Let the building commence! More houses means cheaper houses, which is better for house buyers.

Comment by Jingle Male
2013-06-22 06:04:29

…except that the cost to build new houses is higher than the current selling prices for existing houses.

 
 
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-06-21 06:00:42

For the Picazos, home ownership has led to stress, frustration and desperation. ‘We had no idea about the bubble,’ says Mike Picazo.”

“No idea” they claim.

If this is true then only one thing can be certain. They do not understand the value of a dollar.

If it’s not true, they are liars.

I’d wager the former. Like most people, they had no concept of what they were buying and most importantly, no means to evaluate what they were looking at nor were they equipped to make the determination to proceed or walk away. They made the error of relying on they system (realtor/broker/mortgage scumbag/) for indemnification.

 
Comment by Beer and Cigar Guy
2013-06-21 06:12:15

“It’s no secret that the rich investor class is buying up properties in cities around the world, including Vancouver. But if we look at the numbers we do have, things just don’t add up. For example, we have the highest average house price in the country, and yet average income is lower than most major Canadian centres. If you look at the numbers, Vancouverites are simply too poor to afford real estate. In some areas, it’s astonishing that we even try.”

‘Its almost as if…. and this sounds wacky, but its almost as if we are being played for a Greater Fool. Going deeper into debt than we could ever realistically afford in order to finance something that is worth far less than what the sellers claim. Huh…’

Comment by Al
2013-06-21 08:13:35

If anyone is interested in Vancouver as one of the biggest bubble areas yet standing, there’s a site called the Vancouver Real Estate Anecdote Archive (VREAA) that covers the action there. Interesting stories include the exodus of young workers, large numbers of empty houses that aren’t for sale (held by investors?) and the massive detachment of wages to prices mentioned in the above article. It’s a good read. It truly is different there, but not in a good way.

Comment by snake charmer
2013-06-21 11:10:39

From that website:

“Most Canadians think about real estate on a regular basis, and a good number of them are obsessed with it, an online survey suggests.

That’s the takeaway of a recent poll by online home selling firm Zoocasa, where the real estate company commissioned Abacus Data to poll 1,000 Canadians online between June 3 and 6, 2013.

The poll found that 84 per cent of respondents across the country think about real estate on a regular basis, and 85 per cent have gone as far as shopping online for a new home in the past year.

Nationally, more than a third — 34 per cent — described either themselves or a loved one as obsessed with real estate. In the Greater Toronto Area, which has the second-highest average home price in the country after Vancouver, the percentage of people who identify themselves as being obsessed jumps to 47 per cent, the highest in the country.

Zoocasa notes that the survey took place during the Stanley Cup Playoffs, and just as many people reported talking about real estate on a regular basis as they did about hockey.”

http://vreaa.wordpress.com/

Comment by Carl Morris
2013-06-21 11:29:11

Anytime an asset always goes up it’s only natural that everyone will start focusing on it in order to secure their future.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Patrick
2013-06-21 12:14:42

Beer Guy

A lot of Vancouver is now working in the tar sands and drive their big 4×4 350s home for the weekend. They make about $250,000/year.

About that poll - the data is flawed. A true poll would have given a 100% result for those talking about hockey !

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-06-21 13:46:13

Patrick:

I imagine they included chicks in the poll, so that’s probably where you get that number less than 100%

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with the comment about some people earning $250,000 and living in Vancouver. I think you have to look at the median income (and rents) to say whether or not the housing is overpriced.

 
 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-06-21 06:47:38

“Poor Judgment, Greedy Excess And Quick-Buck Ambition”

It’s well over a decade since the onset of the housing bubble, and the accidentally comedic headlines just keep on coming.

Who could have guessed that finance should be so hilarious?

 
Comment by Bad Andy
2013-06-21 07:26:55

“…that’s changed significantly.”

It’s different this time! Here we go again!

 
Comment by oxide
2013-06-21 09:45:00

High vacancy rate in newly-built houses is also believed to be a major force behind rising house prices

Is there ANY way to explain a statement like this?

Comment by MiddleCoaster
2013-06-21 11:38:42

A typo?

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2013-06-21 11:56:52

They are saying speculators are buying new houses and not moving in or renting them. This would restrict supply that would otherwise be there and etc. 33% is pretty darn high.

Comment by oxide
2013-06-21 12:47:15

OK, so renters don’t count as occupying the house?!? :grin:

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-06-21 13:47:41

Some speculators are choosing not to rent their houses, since they are relying solely on price appreciation for their money.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2013-06-21 14:34:50

“expensive homes are creating soaring rents, an exodus of small shops and a ghost town atmosphere”

Speculators eventually destroy what they seek.

 
 
Comment by Ben Jones
Comment by Carl Morris
2013-06-21 12:57:02

But I’m also curious why some posters here insisted that QE would never end. That interest rates would never rise again. Let’s hear what those posters think now.

I don’t recall insisting, but I’ve been skeptical. And continue to be. I hope reality continues to intrude but I still don’t understand what can force them to stop it. Or why they’d want to.

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-06-21 13:52:49

They’re out of money.

Comment by Carl Morris
2013-06-21 14:15:01

They’re out of money.

I don’t believe that.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-06-21 14:51:55

Carl:

The Federal Reserve announced last year that they would start losing money this year.

 
Comment by Carl Morris
2013-06-21 15:14:45

Yeah, and?

 
 
 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2013-06-21 14:38:10

Some posters insist that house prices and rents will continue to rise and never go down (again) as well.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-06-21 14:38:34

But I’m also curious why some posters here insisted that QE would never end. That interest rates would never rise again. Let’s hear what those posters think now.

Get typing cowards or do we need to post your names and your BS words you posted as recently as this week?

Comment by snake charmer
2013-06-21 14:59:29

I didn’t think it would end. I still don’t. I think the reasons for continuing will become political rather than economic.

Even if it ends, the resulting drop in the Dow will induce its immediate reinstatement.

Comment by alpha-sloth
2013-06-21 15:42:56

reasons for continuing will become political rather than economic.

Isn’t that the point of an independent Fed? Does Bernanke care if Hillary or Christie wins the next election?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Neuromance
2013-06-21 18:23:23

Airplane analogy: They’re flying this thing by the seat of their pants. They’ve got some instruments, but they’re not very good and they are incomplete.

Evidence - look at the differences of opinion among the Fed staff, and someone like Krugman, who was commonly considered the ideological twin of Bernanke.

I always thought it was a conceit that the Fed thought it caused the Great Depression, and as a corollary, thought it could prevent one (”We did it. We’re very sorry. And thanks to you, we won’t do it again”) I realize the economy is very complex and the desire to reduce it to a few unchanging mathematical equations is a very attractive concept. But reality is much more chaotic.

One one hand, printing money to invigorate an economy is nothing new. Zimbabwe did is disastrously. Japan is trying it with mixed effect. It’s not going to endear people to the currency, as more currency reduces the value of the currency. Japan was and is the model for finding the edge of the monetary envelope.

So - can the Fed indefinitely sequester debt on its balance sheet, in its black box? It is a unique economic entity, one that can print money. This possibility was always dependent on whether the currency could hold its value in the face of it. The currency’s value has been eroding at a relatively consistent pace, which seems controlled and to the Fed’s liking. Perhaps this taper-talk a political move. Japan was able to have ZIRP in a deflationary environment. We’ve had ZIRP in an inflationary environment, eroding people’s purchasing power, including seniors who vote in large numbers.

Then, on the political front, there was Obama saying that Bernanke had stayed longer than he wanted, longer than he was supposed to.

Also… this is just talking of tapering. The Fed is still buying 40 billion of MBS and 45 billion of government debt with printed money. The money supply is still increasing.

It was, and is, a grand experiment.

I don’t know if there were economic indicators which drove this or if it was political.

Comment by Ben Jones
2013-06-21 19:10:49

‘The Fed is still buying 40 billion of MBS and 45 billion of government debt with printed money.’

We can’t really know if they are because they aren’t audited. They could be selling or buying 100 billion a week. What we do know is after years of very low interest rates, they have spiked in the past 6 or 7 weeks. And the central banks haven’t said boo.

For the first time in history all major banks went on a printing spree. And what did we get? Bubbles in all sorts of things all over the world. Not jobs, not sustained growth or “stabilized” house prices. IMO now they must back down because the bubbles threaten the system itself. The junk bond bubble alone could sink us into a global depression, and there are several bubbles on top of that one. Like the government debt bubble:

‘Let’s be clear,’ said Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s director of financial stability, a week ago. ‘We’ve intentionally blown the biggest government bond bubble in history.’

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-19/kohler-bond-bubble/4764308

 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2013-06-21 23:03:34

Ben — I heartily agree this belongs in the weekend topics.

One very interesting aspect is that we may experience an apparent decoupling over the next little while between the Wall Street volatility / crash trend line and ever improving real estate prices.

In reality, real estate may already be going down the tubes, but it won’t show up in current data. Unlike stock market trades, which are posted for all the world to see minute-by-minute, real estate transactions are decentralized and don’t show up in the data for months afterwards.

 
 
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-06-21 13:12:47

“Leslie and Scott Tyree backed out of a contract in 2011 to buy a weekend place in Hilton Head, South Carolina, fearing they’d be anchored to a sinking market for second homes. This year, the West Virginia couple pounced on a listing in the same resort town without visiting the property.”

I don’t get this reasoning. You are supposed to buy when prices are low. If this couple felt that prices were too high two years ago, but they’re much higher now, then shouldn’t they be holding out for the next crash?

 
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-06-21 13:16:56

“‘I wouldn’t call it ‘flipping’ — that’s a derogatory term.’”

Whatever.

 
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2013-06-21 13:37:10

“Apparently Asians are 40 per cent of buyers in Auckland and all buying three or more houses.”

So much for the Slithers theory of condoze for green cards.

Comment by Blue Skye
2013-06-21 14:39:31

I hear the same is true in Atlanta.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-06-21 14:39:50

Slithers is looking more and more like the PinkGooGuy. Running off at the mouth with nothing to back it up.

Comment by Blue Skye
2013-06-21 17:36:14

While we agree on many things, I think you should give CT some slack. It is quite possible to spend as much as you want on a building. I myself bought a fancy place once, $350/ft2 replacement cost IIRC according to my insurance company. It was very foolish, but it was possible.

Alas, it did not make the lady as happy as she promised it would, and the debt donkery wore on me. I have a lady now that is happy already on my $25/ft2 economy yacht (no lot cost).

Comment by Housing Analyst
2013-06-21 20:21:00

“It is quite possible to spend as much as you want on a building.”

It certainly is possible. Skim coating gyp board with crushed bone china, gold leaf on every vertical surface, Italian marble on every horizontal surface, etc. How many houses have you seen with those details? Very few I’d wager.

The reality? Dimensional lumber, painted gypboard and standard IFS and EFS sitting on 8″ cast in place walls costs us $50/sq ft, materials and labor irrespective of location.

And as you so eloquently stated yesterday, there is no getting to the truth when we’re sitting around agreeing with each other.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Blue Skye
2013-06-21 21:18:19

No doubt.

 
 
 
 
 
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