Call It Anything You Like, Just Don’t Call It A Bubble
Some housing bubble news from Washington and the world. The Herald Sun, Australia, “Boom, price surge, recovery, strong market, call it anything you like, just don’t call it a housing bubble - not yet, anyway. Yes, residential property prices are rising. Yes, households are willing to carry high debt levels and, yes, property prices are historically expensive. But that’s where the similarity between a bubble and the current market increases end. According to the experts, most property markets are just in a typical bull-market phase, before an expected return to more modest price growth.”
“‘Talk of a bubble pre-election is rubbish. Everyone is clearly cooling their jets at the moment. There are no runaway results or evidence of a bubble,’ says David Morrell, director of buyers advocacy firm Morrell and Koren. ‘Obviously, if you’re buying as an investor out of a super fund then you’ve got a bit more fire power than a young couple gearing themselves up. But anyone talking of a bubble now is talking rubbish, they’re delusional.’”
“Cameron Kusher, a senior analyst at research house RP Data, questions if Australia has ever had a real property bubble. ‘You can’t say we are entering a housing bubble when home values are still below their previous peak,’ Mr Kusher says. ‘I would describe a bubble as a ‘phenomenon’ in which home values become overvalued and ultimately burst. Outside of select coastal markets, it is difficult to say this has really occurred elsewhere in Australia over the recent past.’”
“Stockbroker Bell Potter Wholesale managing director Charlie Aitken says there is a fair degree of ‘fear of missing out’ going on around the nation. ‘There is no country in the world where the man in the street gets greater FOMO (fear of missing out) than Australia,’ Mr Aitken says.”
The Irish Independent. “Let the latest property price figures from the Central Statistics Office serve as a cautionary tale for anyone looking to dip their toe in the property market, particularly in the capital. It seems the Irish are still obsessed with the concept of home ownership, despite the bust. I know – I was there. Right at the height of the boom, I bought my two-bed townhouse in Finglas and I have the negative-equity scars to prove it.”
“The urge to own my own home was stronger than the many warning signs that I, and many others, chose to ignore. But I was driven by a fear that I wouldn’t get a mortgage – that I would be priced out of the market. At the time, the lending market was already showing signs of drying up and I didn’t want to be left behind. But looking back, I had no excuse really.”
“Prices in Dublin and its suburbs shot up by 8pc in the year to July. In the month of July alone prices jumped by 3.3pc – the highest rise in eight years. And apartment prices rose by even greater amounts as buyers competed for a limited number of properties. And property experts are reporting that up to 100 people are showing up for each viewing in South Dublin, while some people with mortgage approvals are finding that Dublin prices are moving beyond the amounts banks were prepared to lend them.”
“But a sustained recovery in the housing market will be driven only by better employment prospects and disposable incomes. Now that the budgetary and pay cuts have kicked in and nearly all the treats have dried up, I can’t help sometimes feeling a little resentful towards the house – at the risk of sounding ridiculous.”
From Lew Rockwell. “The President has been talking a lot of late about the bubble economy. Obama has talked bubbles four times in five days. Recently Obama said, ‘When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy.’ The newspaper account in which I read of the president’s radio remarks about ‘bubbles and busts’ filled out the story with reference to the likely replacements for bubbling Ben Bernanke at the Fed: Janet Yellen and Larry Summers.”
“For a comment on these two peas in the short-list pod it turned to – of all people – a former Fed official! And he offered that ‘both candidates can claim bubble-battling expertise.’ How is it that we’ve had more bubbles than Lawrence Welk and his Champagne Music Makers, what with the president and all these bubble-battlers bustling about?”
The Foreign Policy Journal. “In his latest column, Paul Krugman asks, ‘Why have we been having so many bubbles?’ His answer is instructive. ‘One popular answer’ to his question ‘involves blaming the Federal Reserve—the loose-money policies of Ben Bernanke and, before him, Alan Greenspan.’”
“Krugman’s argument, however, simply is not honest. His claim that interest rates were ‘within historic norms’ during the housing bubble, for example, is what one might call a ‘lie.’ Krugman asserted that since interest rates weren’t low by historical standards, therefore low rates couldn’t have caused the housing bubble. Yet we see that rates were low by historical standards, and thus, his conclusion that the Fed was not the culprit is false.”
“Moreover, the real question isn’t whether interest rates were lower than they had historically been in the past, but whether they were lower than they would otherwise have been if determined by the free market rather than efforts to centrally plan the economy. And the answer to this question is self-evidently in the affirmative, since it has been one of the central purposes of the Fed’s intervention in the market to push rates down below where they otherwise would be.”
“And we don’t need data and charts to illustrate how Krugman is being dishonest with his readers. One may simply examine what economists were saying at the time about the influence of the Fed’s low interest rates on the housing market:
“Millions of Americans have decided that low interest rates offer a good opportunity to refinance their homes or buy new ones.” – May 2, 2001
“To reflate the economy, the Fed doesn’t have to restore business investment; any kind of increase in demand will do…. [H]ousing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery.” – August 14, 2001
“Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.” – October 7, 2001
“[T]he Fed’s dramatic interest rate cuts helped keep housing strong” – December 28, 2001
“To fight this recession the Fed … needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that … Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the NASDAQ bubble.” – August 2, 2002
“[T]hose 11 interest rate cuts in 2001 fueled a boom both in housing purchases and in mortgage refinancing….” – October 1, 2002
“Mortgage rates did indeed fall briefly to historic lows, extending the home-buying and refinancing boom that has helped keep the economy’s head above water.” – July 25, 2003
“Low interest rates … have been crucial to America’s housing boom.” – May 20, 2005
“Now the question is what can replace the housing bubble…. But the Fed does seem to be running out of bubbles.” – May 27, 2005
“[T]he Federal Reserve successfully replaced the technology bubble with a housing bubble. But where will the Fed find another bubble?” – August 7, 2006
“Back in 2002 and 2003, low interest rates made buying a house look like a very good deal. As people piled into housing, however, prices rose—and people began assuming that they would keep on rising.” – July 27, 2007
“Which economists said those things? All of the above quotes are from Paul Krugman, whose record on the housing bubble I documented in my book Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian economics in the financial crisis.”
From Bloomberg. “Politicians have been promising more than they can deliver since the dawn of democracy. So it’s no surprise that President Barack Obama wants to make housing more affordable, ensure that home prices keep going up, reduce taxpayer support for the mortgage-finance system and prevent future crises — simultaneously. But some of the items on his wish list, as outlined in a speech in Phoenix, are contradictory.”
“It’s all well and good to say that the government should ‘cut red tape’ and ’simplify overlapping regulations’ so that ‘responsible families’ have an easier time buying homes. But what does this mean in practice? Should income and down-payment requirements be eased? Lest we forget, lowering lending standards was precisely what got us into the housing mess in the previous decade.”
“As things stand, the federal government is on the hook for all of the losses on nearly every mortgage issued since 2009.”
“Economists have shown that, during the recent housing bubble, prices rose as down payments fell. This empowered buyers who had been shut out of the market, which pushed up prices and temporarily increased the homeownership rate — until it came crashing down. To keep this from happening again, Obama, regulators and lawmakers must avoid the siren song of homeownership for everyone.”
The Washington Post. “It haunts me when I think of some of the mortgage loans I’ve seen and still see. Too many people, who certainly should have known better, agreed to buy homes when their monthly mortgage payments were 50 percent to upward of 70 percent of their net pay. That’s just too much.”
“President Obama has laid out plans to rebuild the housing market. The plans focus on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now, Obama says it’s time to phase out the two agencies. Obama also said something that shouldn’t be overlooked. ‘In the run-up to the crisis, banks and governments too often made everybody feel like they had to own a home, even if they weren’t ready and didn’t have the payments. That’s a mistake we should not repeat.’”
“When mortgage rates and home prices hit historical lows, people would ask me if they should buy a house. ‘Are you ready?’ I asked back. Blank stares often greeted my question. Even if you could get a zero-percent home loan for 30 years, if it eats up more than half your net pay, you probably can’t afford it. Notice I focus on net, not gross, income.”
“As we reinvent the housing finance model, we also have to throw out old advice and lending models. Start with the way we look down on renting. When you rent, you are not a financial failure. You are getting something for your money — a roof over your head. You also maintain flexibility when you rent, allowing you to move easily if you need to find a better-paying job in a different location.”
“Consumer advocates want to make sure any changes the government makes don’t prevent creditworthy individuals from owning homes and improving their economic status. I support that mission. But I also want a more realistic approach to mortgage lending so we don’t repeat past mistakes.”
“Obvously, if you’re buying as an investor out of a super fund then you’ve got a bit more fire power than a young couple gearing themselves up.”
And if you use this “bit more fire power” correctly then you can dominate prices, and dominating prices can end up dominating your return on invested capital.
Which should make the owners of the money that went into the super fund quite happy (for a while at least) and should also make the guys who run the super fund VERY happy since these guys get to extract some hefty fees as the value of the fund expands.
They, the guys who run the super fund, get to extract money on the way up while the guys who put up the money have to wait a bit.
One group, the group that runs the show, gets their money right away; The other group, the ones who put up the money, have to wait until the show is over. This makes for a rather interesting dynamic in that the incentives of the two groups are quite different.
Stay tuned.
And if you use this “bit more fire power” correctly then you can dominate prices, and dominating prices can end up dominating your return on invested capital.
You may be able to dominate prices as you’re buying. I’m skeptical that you can dominate prices as you’re selling.
I think that was Combo’s point.
Raise money, buy houses, drive up prices, collect big paydays. Try to rent or sell, lose money, investors eat the losses.
It is good to be the guy running the fund. Less good to be the person investing into the fund.
4 years ago in Phoenix, every street had many “for sale” signs, and prices fell rapidly as a results (as would be expected).
Now, the “for sale” signs are gone, replaced with “for rent” signs. Rents show no signs of falling. This makes me think that someone must be sitting on a lot of empty housing units.
“4 years ago in Phoenix, every street had many “for sale” signs, and prices fell rapidly as a results (as would be expected).
Now, the “for sale” signs are gone, replaced with “for rent” signs. Rents show no signs of falling.”
The idea that a sea of “for rent” signs will not pressure rents is absurd. Furthermore, mls inventory is on the rise, increasing 1,000 houses from July to August. Sure, the 15,615 houses listed for sale is a far cry from the peak of 48,000, but it is steadily moving in the direction of up, up, up.
How do you collect big paydays without selling? Or are you talking about the fund manager who looks great on paper prior to trying to sell? I suppose maybe he collects a few big paydays. But the fund doesn’t.
“‘Talk of a bubble pre-election is rubbish. Everyone is clearly cooling their jets at the moment. There are no runaway results or evidence of a bubble,’ says David Morrell, director of buyers advocacy firm Morrell and Koren.”
Hey- Denial! THERE you are, man! I’ve been waiting for you! It’s me, remember? Your old pal Reality!
““…Although only a few observers have noted the vested interest in error that accompanies speculative euphoria, it is, nonetheless, an extremely plausible phenomenon. Those involved with the speculation are experiencing an increase in wealth–getting rich or being further enriched. No one wishes to believe that this is fortuitous or undeserved; all wish to think that it is the result of their own superior insight or intuition. The very increase in values thus captures the thoughts and minds of those being rewarded. Speculation buys up, in a very practical way, the intelligence of those involved.
This is particularly true of the first group noted above–those who are convinced that values are going up permanently and indefinitely. But the errors of vanity of those who think they will beat the speculative game are also thus reinforced. As long as they are in, they have a strong pecuniary commitment to belief in the unique personal intelligence that tells them there will be yet more. ..Strongly reinforcing the vested interest in euphoria is the condemnation that the reputable public and financial opinion directs at those who express doubt or dissent. It is said that they are unable, because of defective imagination or other mental inadequacy, to grasp the new and rewarding circumstances that sustain and secure the increase in values…”
-John Kenneth Galbraith
A Short History of Financial Euphoria
“Although only a few observers have noted the vested interest in error that accompanies speculative euphoria, it is, nonetheless, an extremely plausible phenomenon.”
It seems vested interest in error is a key factor in the Housing Bubble: I can’t possibly count the number of times I have heard Californians say, ‘Real estate always goes up,’ in one way or another since we moved here a couple of decades ago.
When I visited Melbourne in the late 1990s, a local I talked with derisively referred to the Herald Sun as “big pictures, little words.” And hasn’t the bubble already burst in Australia? You’d think real estate pundits and experts would be in credibility-preserving, nobody-could-have-seen-it-coming mode by now; these remarks smack of desperation. I remain firm in my prediction that Australia’s going to have the worst depression in its history.
They have got a few hard lessons coming as China slows until it finds its equilibrium, that is certain. And there will be a great moaning and gnashing of teeth in the land.
I notice all the data is starting to get worse with the threat of taken the punchbowl away. Durables plunge, new home sales plunge , we need more QE to save the economy.
And we’re probably going to get more QE.
Of course we are! Because it’s all part of your charade.
More likely: The taper will get pushed back, and the stock market will rally to new all-time record highs in a “taper tantrum relief” rally.
Gambling on the taper timing is pretty much the only game in town on Wall Street these days.
know when to fold em my friend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj4nJ1YEAp4
I don’t think it is just QE. I think falling federal government deficits based on sequestration are, and will continue to have, big negative impact on the economy.
We still have the trade imbalances, so still need some $1.5T a year new debt/money to keep the economy operating. With households still tapped out and not generating net new debt/money, who will create the new debt/money if the federal government stops.
The whole world has been brainwashed into believing that housing is supposed to be utterly unaffordable.
my name is howmuchamonthharvey, can I get a loan and pay a bunch of front loaded interest so u can make your bonus quota mr banker?
Sounds like a good idea. But first you need to get a second job.
BTW, what’s your blood type? Are most of your body parts marketable?
I don’t mind paying a super-high price for the home I buy, so long as I can finance it with a low-interest, low-downpayment loan to keep my monthly payments affordable.
“…But anyone talking of a bubble now is talking rubbish, they’re delusional.”
I’ve been called worse.
‘There is no country in the world where the man in the street gets greater FOMO (fear of missing out) than Australia,’
That seems a rather bold presumption. How about China for another prime candidate?
Realestate
Cashed-up Chinese swoop on Aussie bargains before next boom
Natasha Bita National Social Editor
News Limited
August 23, 2013 1:49PM
Foreign buyers snapped up one in every eight new properties built this year. Source: News Limited
CASHED-up Chinese buyers are swooping on Australia’s housing bargains to cash in on the next property boom.
Chinese migrants are helping friends and family in China to skirt Australia’s foreign investment rules by purchasing established homes on their behalf, agents have told News Corp newspapers.
And Chinese developers are swooping on run-down commercial properties in Sydney and Melbourne to “land bank” and redevelop as apartments during the next boom.
Foreign buyers snapped up one in every eight new properties built this year - up from one in 20 properties in 2011, National Australia Bank research reveals.
So great is the international demand - fuelled by a falling Aussie dollar and Beijing’s ban on buying more than one property - that some developers are now marketing new units exclusively to offshore buyers.
“We’re hearing that a lot of developers now aren’t even marketing in Australia,” NAB senior economist Robert De Iure said yesterday.
“They’re marketing them in Hong Kong, Singapore and China and we’re not even getting a look-in.”
…
The thing is, that Chinese demand is largely the product of stupendous criminality. I’m not sure how using foreign corrupt money to prop up domestic house prices and real estate development became cause for celebration. If the mafia or drug cartels were buying houses for cash, would that be good in the eyes of our political class? Would markets “cheer” it?
Is the West even remotely capable of doing something about this situation? I don’t believe that it is.
“Chinese demand is largely the product of stupendous criminality.”
There should be no doubt at this point that criminality was a driving force in the Housing Bubble. And this should make it all the more satisfying when the eventual second wave of price collapse lands on these folks.
I wish. But one of the most regrettable characteristics of our current style of decision-making is that the innocent suffer as much, if not more, than the guilty.
How many of these so-called innocents do you think there are?
Quite a few. But they have no political power and exist only to sate the greed and selfishness of others.
They have political power. They don’t use it much.
“His claim that interest rates were ‘within historic norms’ during the housing bubble, for example, is what one might call a ‘lie.’”
What might one call a ’spade’?
“[T]he Federal Reserve successfully replaced the technology bubble with a housing bubble. But where will the Fed find another bubble?” – August 7, 2006
“Back in 2002 and 2003, low interest rates made buying a house look like a very good deal. As people piled into housing, however, prices rose—and people began assuming that they would keep on rising.” – July 27, 2007
“Which economists said those things? All of the above quotes are from Paul Krugman, whose record on the housing bubble I documented in my book Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian economics in the financial crisis.”
Krugman vrs. Krugman:
– Interest rates were abnormally low during the Housing Bubble!
– No they weren’t!!!
“What might one call a ’spade’?”
A shovel?
Was the stimulus project spade-ready?
‘Home prices are going up, up, up, but it’s not a bubble just yet.’
‘We have a number of locations where the next home sold may take as much as one year to deliver, because our backlogs are so big at individual communities,” said Douglas Yearly, CEO of luxury home builder Toll Brothers. “That’s when we raise price.’
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-prices-across-us-defy-100000765.html
‘That’s when we raise price’
Sounds like #2; rocket go now.
Don’t you have an article from the 2005-06 time frame about Toll Brothers that you have included in a bubble “greatest hits” collection? I seem to remember a hagiography about one of the brothers himself, making it seem like he was in total control of events when in fact he was not.
‘On a recent Monday evening in suburban Philadelphia, two dozen sober-suited executives huddle around a giant conference table for the weekly “ops” meeting inside the nerve center of Toll Brothers, the hottest homebuilder in America. As another half-dozen division heads join the conversation by satellite, the group begins wrestling with brick-and-mortar matters such as how many digits to include in the codes for custom options that distinguish, for example, butterfly staircases from Palladian kitchens. Suddenly co-founder and CEO Bob Toll bursts in and starts firing questions at his brain trust: Are local managers doing enough to deter the buy-and-flip crowd? Are rival builders throwing up houses without signing up buyers first? His lieutenants reassure the boss that their customers are bona fide primary- and vacation-home owners who just keep coming, and that speculative building isn’t widespread.’
‘Finally, with his paranoia assuaged, Toll allows himself to do what he loves best: ratchet up prices.’
‘For Toll, what looks to many people like pure craziness is perfectly normal, a reflection of a new supply-and-demand equation that will last a long time. He’s an outspoken believer that, yes, the world really has changed this time. That the traditional boom-to-bust housing cycle is now a smooth upward climb. That housing prices will keep rocking practically, well, forever. “We’ll reach the point Europe reached 20 years ago, where families pay 45% of their income on housing and married couples have to live with their parents for years before they can afford houses,” he says. “Prices will keep going up in double digits for years.”
I loved articles like that…
Does the mountain views REALLY justify the high price of land in the desert outside Victorville? (For those not “in the know”, that is in the Mojave Desert, over the mountains from Los Angeles’s Inland Empire, meaning an 60 mile commute to any real possibility of a job market and a 2-3 hour commute to a good job market.)
The people buying McMansions there didn’t plan to live in them. They simply planned on selling them to a greater fool, at a planned HUGE mark-up.
It’s a classic! Those were the days when I was becoming increasingly convinced the national Wall Street financed builders (like Toll Brothers) were headed for a spectacular collapse.
THE NEW KING OF THE REAL ESTATE BOOM
With housing sales soaring, homebuilders are the toast of this year’s FORTUNE 500–and none is riding higher than luxury specialist Toll Brothers. But what happens when there’s a slowdown?
(FORTUNE Magazine)
By SHAWN TULLY
April 18, 2005
…
‘April 18, 2005′
What this reminds me of is psychology, mine included. Because of this blog, I know exactly what I was thinking in April 2005. But it may not be what you think. I had started an earlier blog in 2004 that took an ‘is it or isn’t it’ approach to the housing bubble. I found it completely boring. So I decided to start this blog which would operate on the premise that it was a bubble and look for evidence of that. Articles like this made me more secure in my position. Why? Because a mania requires that the believers are over-confident.
I personally was convinced many years earlier that some type of mania was involved in housing; Austin TX 1998 to be exact. Still, seeing this article again reminds me that even then, I realized anything can happen. And to have conviction is a tough thing to accomplish in these matters. We do have the advantage of experience:
‘According to the experts, most property markets are just in a typical bull-market phase, before an expected return to more modest price growth’
This is the permanently high plateau.
‘You can’t say we are entering a housing bubble when home values are still below their previous peak’
Rationalizing.
‘Talk of a bubble pre-election is rubbish. Everyone is clearly cooling their jets at the moment. There are no runaway results or evidence of a bubble…anyone talking of a bubble now is talking rubbish, they’re delusional.’
And the anger; a result of having a paradigm confronted and lashing out in fear of being wrong. Speaking of fear:
‘The urge to own my own home was stronger than the many warning signs that I, and many others, chose to ignore. But I was driven by a fear that I wouldn’t get a mortgage – that I would be priced out of the market. At the time, the lending market was already showing signs of drying up and I didn’t want to be left behind. But looking back, I had no excuse really.’
This is why I place much stock in the psychology in these reports. It’s more telling than a thousand words.
These articles are too funny. Clearly for international consumption.
Here’s a beautiful bubble place right down the street from where my inlaws live. There are number of cars that regularly park on the grass in the front yards of houses in this neighborhood.
And check how out of alignment the rental price is with the purchase price.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6872-Marilyn-Dr-Huntington-Beach-CA-92647/25265785_zpid/
What is so wierd is everything else is the exact same price as it is everywhere else. They even have these ghetto gas stations everywhere called am/pm (cash or debit only, the pay at the pump thing isn’t on the pump) where gas is currently like $3.60 a gallon. It’s only houses that cost 3X as much, nothing else.
Hey - it has a “Portrait” toilet so they can charge top dollar!
Zillow is TOTAL BS!
Isn’t it amazing that the “rent Zestimate” ($2700) is ALMOST exactly the same as the “mortgage Zestimate” ($2703)?
That mortgage Zestimate is also a joke. “Estimated taxes & insurance of $401 are not included.” What about opportunity cost on the $135K 20% down? And how many buyers of a 40 year-old, 3/2 are going to have $135k to put down?
Make it a 3% down, add PMI, then count PITI, and watch the payment jump to $4500 a month. Now add in repairs and maintenance.
Rent would have to be closer to $6000 a month to justify that $675K purchase price. I’m kind-a surprised that isn’t the “rent” Zestimate. Since they’re just making up numbers, they should “make them up” better.
I can’t really blame Zillow for lying. They are advertiser supported, mostly from RealtWhores and mortgage originators. Who would advertise on a site that said a house was 100% overpriced?
I reserve my blame for people that would buy a house like that, at that price.
Take off the Debt Donkey glasses. A modest person could live for decades on the amount that this house is overpriced.
Is anything selling at these prices?? I noticed it has a price cut.
… call it anything you like, just don’t call it a housing bubble.
How about “Dead cat bounce?”
“When you rent, you are not a financial failure. You are getting something for your money — a roof over your head. You also maintain flexibility when you rent, allowing you to move easily if you need to find a better-paying job in a different location.”
Is the denial phase of the Housing Bubble stages of grief finally ending?
I think a lot of people got through the whole cycle of grief already. The manic crowd is getting smaller. The next leg down in the falling-down-a-flight-of-stairs will crush some more of them but not all.
Hmmmmm……
—————-
American Homes 4 Rent Said to Fire Employees After Loss
John Gittelsohn & Heather Perlberg - Aug 23, 2013 - Bloomberg
American Homes 4 Rent (AMH) yesterday fired a group of workers, with a focus on acquisition and construction staff, after the housing landlord reported a fiscal second-quarter loss, according to a person with knowledge of the terminations.
The company, owner of almost 20,000 single-family homes, has cut about 15 percent of its workforce this year, including an earlier round of terminations before its initial public offering last month, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. The Malibu, California-based company, which raised $705.9 million in the IPO, had a net loss of $14 million, or 15 cents a share, on revenue of $18.1 million in the quarter ended June 30, according to a statement this week.
Single-family landlords have struggled to turn a profit while acquiring homes faster than they can fill them with tenants. Hedge funds, private-equity firms and real estate investment trusts have raised more than $18 billion to purchase more than 100,000 rental houses in the past two years. American Homes 4 Rent, founded by B. Wayne Hughes, is the largest single-family landlord after Blackstone Group LP’s Invitation Homes, which has spent more than $5 billion on 32,000 homes.
American Homes 4 Rent owned 19,825 properties for an investment of $3.4 billion as of July 31, according to its earnings statement. About 56 percent of the company’s homes were leased as of June 30.
Combined with the largest mortgage outfit Wells Fargo laying off thousands of employees and WrongWayBarrack telegraphing the bubble warning over and over, it looks like a painful path for those who got suckered into housing.
Look out below.
Wells Fargo layoffs were largely in the refi devision.
With rising interest rates, refi’s have been falling much faster than new purchase loans.
Besides, the point of this story could be seen as being that most of the demand in the recent “recovery” was not end user, but rather was from these REITs. Since the REIT’s were not using traditional mortgages, the temporary artificial demand they were providing would not effect mortgage originators such as Wells Fargo.
Wrong.
And we dispelled that myth the other day so why repeat it?
That’s right… You’re Darryl.
“About 56 percent of the company’s homes were leased as of June 30.”
Oh snap.
Who was dumb enough to buy stock in this company?
It reminds me of Pets.com, which was able to generate a lot of revenue by selling dog food for $5 a bag, but it cost them $10 a bag to get the dog food to the customer.
You can raise cash and buy lots of houses, but let’s see you rent them all out at a profit!
On the flip side, 100K houses should not make a dent in the excess supply, IF there are 25 million excess, empty houses.
If there are actually something more like 1 million to 2 million empty, excess houses, sucking 100K+ of them off the market could make a significant impact on supply and demand.
I can see where investors would still have a problem. If you had $40T setting around, where are you going to put it? Way overpriced stocks? Way overpriced bonds? Way overpriced real estate? A bank with WAY sub-inflation interest rates? Loan it out to people that are already in debt up to their eyeballs with little to no hope of ever paying the money back? Start a business in an already oversupplied and under-demanded economy?
Seriously, if you had $40T to invest today, where would you put it?
Seriously, if you had $40T to invest today, where would you put it?
Short term T-bills until after the crash, I guess. Since cash isn’t an option at those levels…
I’d buy up legislators, first thing.
The loss figures suggest that if all of their houses were leased, they would still be losing money. The buy to rent mutant mania may fizzle out pretty quickly. When these “cash buyers” exit the market, the used house sales figures will look even more horrific, if they really are over half of the current sales.
The banks in the small EU banking haven I inhabit just switched from no-money-down loans to 10-20% down payments. This had no effect on luxury properties but everything else either stopped selling or is getting bids at 80% or less of offering prices that were reasonable before the deposits became necessary. Sellers are in shock, and I bet the bankers are sweating, too. I am actually looking at buying a house for the first time since 2002. It is still way too expensive, but for the first time in a decade it does not look suicidal.
This small haven of yours is where?
“When wealth concentrates at the very top, it can inflate unstable bubbles that threaten the economy.”
I think the opposite is true. Wealth concentrating at the top deflated the economy, by reducing consumer demand.
Government and the financial sector try to offset this by increasing debt. But that ends up increasing bubbles, while preserving the income inequality that the inability to sell would have eventually forced to be decreased.
Agreed. Wealth concentrating at the top would crash an economy as demand would fall as the “spenders” have no money.
We combated that natural falling demand with lower interest rates and looser lending standards. This allowed new debt/money to be created by the poor, to ensure they keep spending, allowing ever more money to be accumulated by the rich.
It is the loose lending that contributed to the bubbles. The rich had huge sums of money they were looking to invest, and the poor got in on the action by borrowing.
Again we see that the trade imbalances are the root cause of our economic troubles. They force us to have loose lending to create the new money needed to feed the imbalances, and that loose lending creates the asset price bubbles.
The price bubbles are not the root cause of our ills. They are an unintended side-effect of the loose money policies that are needed to keep the economy functioning in the face of massive imbalances.
“We”?
You got a frog in yer pocket Darryl?
tick. tock. tick. tock.
The Debt Donkeys are all in this together.
You folks on here are a whole lot more intelligent than I. So here is my question. I currently own a home in the Phoenix area and owe about 128k it comps they say at about 160k. Should I sell it and find a place to rent or stay in it. We would like to get a few hundred extra square foot and we are trying to decide whether to rent or try buying another with the little bit of equity we have in our current home. Of course renting seems obviously the better choice because I wouldn’t have the worry of maintenance etc.. Thanks for any help you can give.
If rent is cheaper than the mortgage, I’d sell out, bank the money, and wait for the next crash before I considered buying again. I don’t think this bubble will last nearly as long as the previous one.
I don’t know that I’m any smarter than you though, so take that with a grain of salt. None of us knows what’s going to happen for sure. We were all certain the market would be dragging along the bottom by now, for an extended period of time.
Place yer bets and spin the wheel!
Ok living in NYC gives me different perspective since space and weight are important.
Why do you need the extra space? I’ve convinced friends of mine in the same boat as you to downsize, most people have so much useless stuff you could empty a whole bedroom….sell it on ebay donate it just get rid of it….or find ways of compacting it.
If you need the room to start a business well maybe by doing the above you’ll have the room.
If your going to start a family would zoning allow you to open the roof or add a bedroom to the back of the house?
Or start thinking of a platform bed with 6-9 draws underneath…or an ottoman that opens up or even a couch/futon with storage http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=121155506024
Doug Kass on Housing Market, Scary Research
” Kass: Housing has blown up
“Could there be more evidence in a single day that housing blew up on the rate ’surge’ catalyst,” asks Doug Kass following friday’s dive in new home sales and word American Homes 4 Rent has cut about 15% of its workforce.
Hedge funds, P-E firms, and REITs have raised more than $18B to purchase over 100K homes the last two years and - if AMH is any indication - find themselves with a lot more property than they can profitably rent out. It’s more than an issue for the companies and their investors - one wonders how much of this unprofitable (and apparently about to slow) activity has boosted the housing stats.”
http://bbpulse.blogspot.com/2013/08/doug-kass-on-housing-market-scary.html