Affordability Is Becoming More Of A Problem Again
The Los Angeles Times reports from California. “The number of homes on the market jumped in February, according to new figures from the California Assn. of Realtors, and is well above figures from a year ago. C.A.R. reported five months’ worth of unsold inventory on the market in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. That’s up from 4.5 months in January, and 3.8 months in February 2013. In some parts of the region, especially Riverside County at 5.6 months, the inventory was even higher. C.A.R.’s chief economist, Leslie Appleton-Young pointed to a 27% growth in homes for sale between $300,000 and $750,000 – a range that accounts nearly half of all home sales in California – as a sign that the market is becoming more fluid.”
“‘You’ve got sellers responding to price appreciation and thinking maybe now’s the time to make a move,’ she said. But that price appreciation is making it harder for buyers to take advantage. Sales volume in the Los Angeles area is down 12.6% year-over-year, which is also contributing to higher inventory, as homes stay on the market longer. Affordability is becoming more of a problem again. ‘That’s one of the things we’re getting increasingly concerned about,’ she said. ‘The share of first-time home buyers is really low.’”
The Daily News. “Tight inventory and the continuing decline in distressed properties combined to stagnate homebuying activity across Southern California in February as sales dropped to their lowest level for the month in six years, said DataQuick. ‘I think we are in an extended adjustment period. We had a fairly extended good period that lasted about nine years, probably longer than it should have,’ said said Roger Hance, president of the Van Nuys-based Southland Regional Association of Realtors, of the time period leading up to the crash in the middle of the last decade.”
“DataQuick analyst Andrew LePage expects inventory to follow a normal seasonal pattern and increase this spring but a glut of homes coming on the market is not likely. ‘On the buyer side (of the market) some people have been nudged out and a number of people have taken a step back after prices spiked last year and want to see if they hold,’ LePage said.”
The Friday Flyer. “The Southwest California housing market is hoping for a little spring in the market over the next few months. Sales have been declining steadily and prices slid again last month after rising slightly in January. Since peaking in September at $445,514, Temecula has dropped 9% to $406,918 this month. Murrieta topped out at $399,908 in November, dropping 13% to $347,206 last month. Region-wide, our median fell 4% while the rest of the state was off 6%.”
“Single family resales are down 7% from a year ago but if you look at the sales chart you’ll see we experienced a four-month rally starting in March in each of the past two years. Pending sales don’t indicate that kind of increase starting soon but the traditional spring buying season is upon us so we’ll see how sustainable this recovery has been. The drop-off in investor purchases and first time buyers is evident in the market but the biggest problem continues to be buyer qualifications.”
The Press Democrat. “Amid tight inventory, Sonoma County’s housing market has gotten off to its slowest start in six years. Buyers purchased 260 single-family homes in February, according to The Press Democrat’s monthly housing report compiled by Pacific Union International VP Rick Laws. Last month, sales fell 11 percent from a year earlier. For the first two months of 2014, buyers have purchased 535 houses. That is the lowest number since 347 homes were purchased for the same period in 2008, a time when prices were tumbling sharply. ‘Without a doubt we’re off to a slow start,’ Laws said.”
“To date this year, sales of Sonoma County homes priced under $300,000 have declined 73 percent from a year earlier. Meanwhile, sales have increased 79 percent for homes priced at or above $700,000.”
“Agents expect more homes on the market as the traditional spring sales season gets under way. Even so, many potential sellers have two reasons for taking their time, said Maria Lounibos, a broker with Sotheby’s International Realty in Sonoma. Some sellers, she said, are betting on rising prices and thinking, ‘If I can get 600 today, six months from now I can get 650.’”
The Burbank Leader. “The median home price for a Burbank home in February was more than $100,000 above what it was during the same time last year. The median cost for a single family residence last month was $638,000, a nearly 21% uptick from $527,750 in February 2013, according to Realtor Eric Benz with Dilbeck Real Estate. Linda Barnes, a Realtor with Keller Williams Realty in Burbank, said she doubts the market will see a rapid growth in prices as in the start of 2012, a scenario that has the makings for the bursting of another housing bubble.”
“‘I don’t expect to see that kind of surge in prices,’ she said. ‘Whenever you have prices go up too rapidly, then you have that kind of situation where people see so much value in their homes that they start taking out a lot of money because their houses would appraise for that much money.’”
The Press Enterprise. “A federal court’s approval of the $2.1 billion settlement that California and 48 states reached with Ocwen Financial Corporation and its servicing company in December 2013 over mortgage servicing violations has opened old wounds in the Inland region. Charles Gregg, now living in a homeless shelter in San Bernardino, said he’d be happy if he could get some of his losses back. Gregg said his problems began after he refinanced the house, missed a few payments and had his loan get repackaged and resold. Later, he said he discovered the foreclosure filings were robo-signed.”
“‘I took them to state court and federal court and, both times, was told I had no standing to sue,’ he said. ‘Now, reading this, I believe I’ve been victimized, too.’”
The Southland Times. “Is buying a family home really a good investment? NZ Wealth head of advisor services Ben Brinkerhoff had his fingers singed in the US housing collapse, so he knows this better than most. Back in 2003 he bought a cheap condo in San Diego, not too far from the sea. With fees, rates, utilities and insurance to pay, he was forking out a significant premium to own over renting. ‘I was essentially losing money every month, but the property values continued to appreciate,’ he says.”
“Until 2007, that is, when everything tanked. Brinkerhoff got out relatively early, selling up for a US$30,000 loss. ‘If it’d continued to go up, it looked like it was the smartest thing ever,’ he says. ‘If it went down, you can see how stupid it became pretty quick.’”
“One of his friends took the fall harder. All the warning signs were there: The house was cheaper to rent than to own, his dad paid the deposit, and he could only afford interest-only payments. ‘I said, ‘I wouldn’t touch it’,’ says Brinkerhoff. But try telling that to someone who had watched property appreciate for something like 14 straight years. ‘In these people’s entire investing lifetimes, they’d only seen this thing go one direction,’ says Brinkerhoff. ‘And he didn’t listen to me, and he got creamed - he got totally, totally creamed.’”
‘February marked the fourth straight month that sales were below the 400,000 level and the seventh straight decline on a year-over-year basis. Sales in February slipped 0.7 percent from a revised 363,930 in January but were down 13.7 percent from a revised 418,520 in February 2013. The statewide sales figure represents what would be the total number of homes sold during 2014 if sales maintained the February pace throughout the year. It is adjusted to account for seasonal factors that typically influence home sales.’
“The slower sales in February reflects diminished housing affordability after three years of solid price increases and interest rates that are nearly a full percentage point higher than a year ago,” said C.A.R. President Kevin Brown. “With the interest rate difference alone, home buyers this year would have to pay $150 more per month on their mortgage payment than last year, a substantial amount for many would-be home buyers trying to get into the market.”
Check out the tables at the bottom of the link.
Must be the weather. Clearly it was much too nice and warm to go house hunting.
AGW contributes to lower home sales, I expect to see that headline on Yahoo any day now.
“The number of homes on the market jumped in February, according to new figures from the California Assn. of Realtors, and is well above figures from a year ago.”
With housing demand cratering to 17 year lows, why is this a surprise?
California Housing Demand Falls 9% YoY; Sinks To 5 Year Lows
http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-home-value/r_9/#metric=mt%3D30%26dt%3D1%26tp%3D5%26rt%3D14%26r%3D9%26el%3D0
‘In the La Crescenta-Montrose area, 38 homes were listed on the market last month, four more than the February 2013, and 15 were sold, down two from last year, according to Sorem’s report. The median price of homes there in February experienced an uptick, climbing from $541,000 to $658,000 in a single year, the data read.’
‘In La Cañada Flintridge, 16 homes were sold last month, three more from last year. Forty-six homes were put up for sale, 11 more from February 2013. The median selling price was $1.19 million, up from $1.16 million.’
‘Although business has picked up, Fresno area homebuilders must still be cautious about not paying too much for property or overbuilding in a still-fragile real estate market. Jerry De Young, president and CEO of De Young Properties in Fresno, said he only purchases properties that are priced at a level that pencils out when considering how much new homes are selling for.’
‘Many of the lots are unrealistically overpriced, he said.’
‘Miller agreed that property owners are currently asking too much for their raw land. “They are still pricing their property as though we are still at the peak of the market and pricing,” he said.’
‘That’s one of the things we’re getting increasingly concerned about,’ she said. ‘The share of first-time home buyers is really low’
What’s the problem Leslie? Won’t all the rich Chinese buy up all these houses?
‘a more apt comparison for Xingrun might be Pets.com, the poster child of the 1990s internet bubble. The supplier of dog collars and bird toys became the first publicly traded online retailer to fail, less than two years after raising $100 million in funding.’
‘Though Pets.com’s business model—which entailed, for instance, shipping 50-lb. sacks of dog food—seems easy to criticize now, big-name venture capital firms invested in the company. Its failure happened as other online retailers, whose valuation had also been driven sky-high by enthusiastic investors and stock-promoting investment banks, also collapsed.’
‘Something similar may be underway in China’s property market. Developers have borrowed heavily on the widely held assumption that Chinese real estate prices can only go up’
‘The fallout from Pets.com and other internet startups ultimately destroyed billions in investor capital, crashed the Nasdaq stock market, trashed the reputations of Wall Street brokers and analysts, and left San Francisco with more than its share of empty office buildings.’
‘That’s hard to remember now, when investors’ willingness to plow money back into internet properties has proved incredibly resilient (as have several Wall Street personalities from that era, not to mention San Francisco’s real estate market.) But it did take nearly 15 years to get to this point.’
Interesting that we seen money losing internet firms exceed this $100 million example several times over in the past few months alone.
Blackstone Group has poured billions into real estate in the past few years, but the U.S. housing market has lost its “big pop” as an investment option, CEO Stephen Schwarzman told CNBC on Wednesday.
During an interview on “Squawk Box,” Schwarzman said home prices price in some markets spiked as much as 20 percent in recent years but now investment returns on home prices have settled somewhere between 5 and 10 percent.
“That’s just great, but it doesn’t justify us buying at the same rate,” said Schwarzman, whose firm has bought $7 billion to $9 billion worth of individual homes,
Schwarzman said he’s content to limit his exposure at those levels.
“We think a lot of the big pop in housing has gone out,” he said.
(Read more: Byron Wien: There’s still time to buy stocks)
Asked whether Blackstone’s big position in real estate helped drive up prices following the subprime mortgage crisis, Schwarzman said the investments have most likely affected only smaller markets where their home purchases have been focused.
“We’re in effect a bit player in a very massive market, and the laws of supply and demand are really what drive housing,” Schwarzman said.
‘investment returns on home prices have settled somewhere between 5 and 10 percent’
These guys were never anywhere near 10%.
‘The county’s median price declined 2 percent from January to $449,825. The median still increased 18 percent from a year ago…To date this year, sales of Sonoma County homes priced under $300,000 have declined 73 percent from a year earlier. Meanwhile, sales have increased 79 percent for homes priced at or above $700,000.’
Bonus points for an explanation of what this shift in the sales mix would do to median prices.
‘House flipper Greg Hebner expects to rake in about 30 percent profit in eight months, as he seeks a buyer for his latest makeover. Hebner would be able to make that profit thanks to the availability of short-term financing for flippers. He used $360,000 in cash and a loan to purchase the $880,000 home in Los Angeles in August. If he gets his asking price of $1.4 million, his take will have grown to $480,000.’
‘Flippers, who stoked the housing bubble a decade ago, are making a comeback with the help of funding from private-equity firms and other non-bank investment companies.’
‘Hebner financed the purchase of his five-bedroom, four-bath home and a $265,000 renovation with a loan from Los Angeles-based Arixa that covered three-fourths of his costs. Hebner, who became a managing director at Arixa last year, said he recused himself from his own loan review to avoid conflicts of interest.’
‘Hebner said rising home prices and mortgage rates have cooled demand since last year, when he bought his 1937 bungalow. The 2,944-square-foot (274-square-meter) house went under contract last week, two months after it was listed, for a little under Hebner’s asking price. “It’s not a seller’s market as much as it was,” he said.’
So this fraudster takes a loan from the company he runs to buy a depreciating retail item at a hugely inflated price on the speculation that he can sell it for more later……
Where do you start?
I want to know what his daily/monthly carrying costs are on the property. I’d then like to set up a ticker similar to the national debt clock to add them up by the minute and watch while his fantasy profits go up in smoke as the place sits unsold. I’d also like to be able to track his daily blood pressure during the process.
Did I miss something? This is a 1937 bungalow with 5br 4ba? Or did he spend $265k to “build” that?
With housing prices falling once again in California, how much of that can be attributed to FHA loan ceilings getting lowered by$100k?
It seems to me a $100k price decline is a guaranteed minimum price reduction.
That 2013 price paid for an L.A. cracker shack seems like a sham now, doesn’t it?!!??!
Hey, go ahead and laugh but the strawberry pickers with fistfuls of other people’s money will be back in force tout suite and you won’t be laughing much longer!
Oooh, nurse is here with morning meds!
OPM, true that.
Or as I like to say “Hey, you didn’t pay for that!”.
http://www.propertyradar.com/reports/real-property-report-california-february-2014
Good stuff here on more granular data on CA sales.
1. The reduction in Feb-2013 to Feb-2014 homes sales is pretty much from many fewer distressed sales occurring, the number of non-distressed sales is slightly up. It will be interesting to see if the number of non-distressed sales continues to rise, or if this number also starts to fall.
2. Purchases by LLCs or LPs represents a bit over 3% of market purchases in February 2014 (homes that are listed, not trustee sales), and about 6% of market sales. LLC/LPs represented about 35-40% of purchases at trustee sales.
In this regard, Blackstone is right, they are a pretty small part of the “market” sales.
However, consider:
In round numbers, LLCs/LPs bought about 325 homes at trustee sales, and about 975 homes on the open market (my estimates from the graphs), for a total of about 1,300 homes added by LLCs/LPs. They sold a total of about the same on the open market, so while some LLCs and LPs are still buying, in aggregate, they are selling as much as they are buying.
At the peak of their activity, they were adding about 3,800 per month (appears as though October 2012 was the peak buying month), they sold about 2,400-2,500 that month…in aggregate adding about 1,300 to 1,400 to their collective ownership.
We seem to be at an inflection point now, where in aggregate, LLCs/LPs are inventory neutral, where before they were adding to inventory. It will be interesting to see what happens as this goes negative (selling more than buying).
Given the magnitudes (less than 10% of the activity, and a small fraction if you are looking at the net change–purchases minus sales), I expect it won’t make much of a difference, but we should know soon, as I suspect that this balance will turn negative in 2014 (more selling than buying by LLCs/LPs).
Looks like Yellen and company are going to raise rates. Not good for those counting on house appreciation. We’ll see how happy these hedge fund landlords like the business when their 5% (or less) returns get swamped by higher treasuries. Gosh, some of their creditors/inventors might even want their money back! I wonder how they would raise the cash?
So the big Bernanke experiment is coming to an end. Will there be any effect of zero rates/QE going away? We might just find out who’s swimming naked.
I’ve printed out the three graphs showing LLC/LP purchases/sales, after blowing them up in PowerPoint, and have drawn extra lines (I love the “distribute horizontally” function) so I can more easily estimate the NET CHANGE in ownership by LLCs/LPs in the entire state (there were some LLC/LP owners in January 2007–before the start of the graph, so my answer won’t be the overall ownership, but just the change in ownership by these entities since the crash).
I’ll post later my estimates from these graphs…there are 7 years of monthly data for three graphs, so I don’t have the time to estimate the ~250 data points just now.
Yellen & Co will be raising rates by what, the end of 2015? Will there be an effect? Absolutely…it’s the magnitude of the effect that is hard to predict.
The really big question is what happens to home prices and long-term rates between now and then. If there is continued 20% annual appreciation in CA, then home prices will be at greater and greater risk of big moves down with higher interest rates–I would then expect there to be a big move down in prices with higher mortgage rates. If things flatten off where they are right now, then the risk of a big move with higher rates starting in 2015 is lower.
I say this because of looking at historical affordability indices. CA’s “affordability index” per the CAR as of Q4 2013 was about 32…not the craziness of 2007 (when it hit 11), nor the lows seen at the peak of the prior big RE cycle in CA of 18 (1989).
From 1990 to 1999, the AVERAGE affordability index was 35, with a high of 44 (1997), and a low of 22 (1990). In other words, there can be a fair bit of movement in rates before we start stretching the limits of affordability as compared by the decade of the 1990s.
If with constant interest rates, higher and higher prices push that affordability to the low 20’s, then higher rates will have a big impact on home prices.
If with constant interest rates, home prices move only with inflation from now forward, then affordability will more or less stay at or around 32, and the CA housing market will be able to withstand a much greater move in long-term rates before getting to levels of affordability that previously marked cyclical market peaks.
‘Yellen & Co will be raising rates by what, the end of 2015?’
‘The Federal Reserve will probably end its massive bond-buying program this coming fall, and could start to raise interest rates around six months later, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said on Wednesday.’
‘That’s a somewhat more aggressive path toward higher rates than some investors had anticipated, and both U.S. stocks and bonds slumped. Futures traders now are pricing in a first rate hike as soon as April 2015.’
“She certainly moved (the timetable) up a little bit and I don’t think the market was expecting that at all because she is widely viewed as being more on the dovish side of the aisle than she is on the hawkish side,” said Peter Kenny, CEO of Clearpool Group in New York.’
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/yellen-fed-poised-trim-bond-050257961.html
I think I was looking at a report that noted a majority of the Fed thought short term rates would be around 1% (or more) by the end of 2015.
BTW, I suspect the move up in rates will be earlier/faster than people expect (my suspicion is based on a view that signs of wage inflation will pop up before expected–an “unexpected” increase in inflation).
I got this in an email yesterday from NAMB:
‘Adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) are making a comeback in the housing market. In the fourth quarter of 2013, ARMs comprised 31 percent of mortgages in the $417,001-to-$1 million range and 61 percent of mortgages more than $1 million, both increases from the previous year. As a main factor in the housing crash, should we be worrying about the increase in ARMs?’
“The Federal Reserve will probably end its massive bond-buying program this coming fall, and could start to raise interest rates around six months later, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said on Wednesday.”
Forecast: Rain.
Bank to debtor: Your umbrella is being recalled.
Ben, the article was from the WSJ (titled “Adjustable-Rate Mortgages Make a Comeback”).
They had 4 graphs that showed the percentage of ARMs by loan size:
(1) $250k-$350k
(2) $350k to $417k
(3) $417k to $1MM
(4) $1MM+
The starting point for each graph was in 2005, at that point, the percent of loans that were ARMs was about:
(1) 45-50%
(2) Slightly under 60%
(3) 70-75%
(4) 80%
The low for each graph was about:
(1) and (2) 0% (or really close to it)
(3) 15% or so
(4) 50% or so
And now, the recent readings are:
(1) and (2) Less than 10%
(3) 31%
(4) 61%
So, lower priced loans went from 40-50% ARMs, down to 0%, and now back up, but below 10%.
$417k-$1MM went from 70% down to 15%, and now back up to 31%.
Over $1MM went from 80%, down to 50%, and now back up to 61%.
This is certainly a trend worth watching…
Discussing newly minted ARMS is for the future. There are still millions of ARMS that are in delinquency and default that haven’t been deposed.
“The really big question is what happens to home prices and long-term rates between now and then. If there is continued 20% annual appreciation in CA, then home prices will be at greater and greater risk of big moves down with higher interest rates–
Why would they when current asking prices are 300% higher than the cost to reproduce?
I say this because of looking at historical affordability indices. CA’s “affordability index” per the CAR as of Q4 2013 was about 32…not the craziness of 2007 (when it hit 11), nor the lows seen at the peak of the prior big RE cycle in CA of 18 (1989).
“Affordability Index”? The parameter created solely by NAR/Realtor that has been completely dispelled as complete hogwash?
RenTrollHogwash,
Just when we thought there was hope for you, you go off the rails and post more fraudulent tripe.
“Why would they when current asking prices are 300% higher than the cost to reproduce?”
Well, they went up from 250% to 300% more than reproduction costs over the past 12 months, didn’t they? Why did that happen?
California is more like 400%.
Your point is what?
My point is that you take it as given that home prices cannot go up by 20% from here because they are already 300% over reproduction costs.
However, if reproduction costs were some sort of magical ceiling for home prices, they should have never gotten to 250% (or 200%), and especially not 400% in the first place.
If it is so easy to undercut the market at 25% of current home prices and make a profit, why in the world are there no builders doing so?
Your position makes no sense in the world of profit-driven enterprise.
I didn’t say they couldn’t or wouldn’t nor does it matter if they do considering collapsing housing demand is the natural outcome of resale prices 400% higher than reproduction costs in CA.
Who said contractors aren’t undercutting the market? We are. And what are “builders”?
I don’t have a “position”. You have a motive and it’s founded on some very uninformed and speculative wagers you made and now you’re saying everything any anything to support it irrespective of how false it is.
So, I grabbed the LLC/LP purchase/sales graphs off of the Property Radar Report, and plotted an estimate of each bar to see how much partnerships/LLCs were net buyers or net sellers (ie. how many homes in CA are in the hands of LP/LLC buyers).
For each month, I estimated:
Market purchases LESS Market sales PLUS distressed purchases. A positive number means that in aggregate, partnerships/LLCs were net purchasers of homes that month. A negative number means that in aggregate, partnerships/LLCs were net sellers of homes that month.
From early 2007 to approximately the end of 2010, LLCs/LPs were net sellers of SFHs in CA (all months were negative except 4 in 2010).
This makes logical sense, since I’m sure there were plenty of folks who were over-exposed going into the crash, and 2007-2010 was still in wind-down mode for flipping gone awry. During this timeframe, they (LLCs/LPs) net sold about 37k homes (+/-).
From 2011 onward, all months shows net purchases by partnerships/LLCs, EXCEPT a few (November 2013-January 2014; February 2014 was about neutral). My estimate from pulling data from the graphs is that partnerships/LLCs amassed net purchases of about 15.5k homes (+/-).
And what about the millions of defaulted houses held by servicers, lenders and banks that have yet to be liquidated?
Property Radar tracks this data. Their count of REO (homes that have been foreclosed and gone back to the bank, and not resold) is just over 41,000 in California as of February 2014.
And why do you think they exclude the excess, empty and defaulted inventory?
They include the defaulted inventory as a different category. Here are their foreclosure inventory numbers from February 2014.
Preforeclosure: NOD, but not scheduled for sale: 39.4k
Scheduled for Sale: Notice of trustee sale filed: 18.6k
REO: sold to lender at trustee sale: 41.3k
That pretty much covers your defaulted and REO (shadow inventory of distress).
The vacancy rates (empty) are covered by the Census–as noted previously.
No they exclude defaulted inventory set aside as a result of foreclosure moratoriums.
I always wear a suit, unless I am in the hot tub.
“We might just find out who’s swimming naked.”
+1 Uncle Sam for sure.
Remember,
Housing demand in CA has fallen for 5 years straight.
http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-home-value/r_9/#metric=mt%3D30%26dt%3D1%26tp%3D5%26rt%3D14%26r%3D9%26el%3D0
It appears Blackstone made what little market there was over the last 5 years. And overpaid dearly for it.
Look out below.
LLCs and LPs purchased 3% of the marketed homes, not 3% of ALL homes (what Zillow tracks). LLC and LP buyers have been a small fraction of the market.
And they still overpaid massively. And housing demand is still at 5 year lows and falling.
Ya know RentalWatch….. your constructs to support whatever outcome you’re hoping for go on endlessly. Have you ever considered a hobby outside of all the shucking and jiving you do?
Rental Fraud wrote:
If there is continued 20% annual appreciation in CA … If things flatten off where they are right now…
I can’t even read all your cognitive dissonance fear driven tripe anymore RF. It’ll either go up 20 percent again (never). Or there’ll be a permanently high plateau.
Your broke, is our joke.
Sigh.
I’ll state my view again on the coming housing cycle:
If appreciation doesn’t stop/slow considerably, we are going to be in for another boom/bust–largely driven by the fact that the Fed has turbo-charged the rise off the bottom.
If appreciation slows, we will NOT have a permanently high plateau, but this next housing cycle will be more shaped like earlier cycles (longer cycle, not a quick bounce up/recrash).
That’s the point. Your “view” is predicated on your wallet, not the fundamentals. And repeating it does nothing but show your motive.
Now back on the topic of Fundamentals…. Housing demand in CA has fallen for 5 years straight.
Our investments were based on the supply/demand fundamentals of CA. It isn’t an accident that our investing in residential was concentrated here (despite lots of folks showing us transactions in AZ and NV).
We are now in the process of watching it all play out, and determining when to begin selling out of our housing position (we have started to sell out of our position as of now).
Well good luck with that. Start slashing your asking prices now.
Here in the OC my rent is low compared to the house payments around me. Why should I care about how house prices are rising?
So Bill, if you came into a substantial amount of money or even won a lottery, would you consider buying a home or are you a committed renter.
Maybe you can afford now you just don’t want your own home no problem, some people don’t care about owning a home ever?
Only dumb. borrowed. money pays current massively inflated prices for a house.