When You Make Money This Cheap, You Create Bubbles
CNBC reports on the UK. “The spotlight on the London property market as a destination for colossal sums of money has intensified after the so-called Panama Papers leak. The documents have led to various reports detailing the foreign ownership of multiple prime London properties, sparking fears that some multimillion-dollar deals are being financed with laundered money. London property is a compelling choice for criminals looking to make dirty money clean, according to law enforcement agencies. The city also has a highly competent and extensive professional services industry to provide all of the financial, advisory and legal support necessary to buy a house. These agents are tasked with raising red flags if they suspect corrupt money is in play but United Nations data show only a minuscule fraction of deals involving laundered money are ever flagged.”
“At the turn of the century, according to Nationwide data, the average first-time buyers’ house price was at a 4.3 multiple of their average salary. Now that figure has billowed out to around 10.1. Another negative side effect is said to be a prioritization in recent years by U.K. developers of building luxury developments instead of desperately needed affordable accommodation. Transparency International cites house price manipulation and the growth of ‘ghost’ areas as concerns. Indeed, an Evening Standard investigation in 2014 revealed £3 billion worth of London mansions sit empty, with the negative knock-on effects for local services and communities.”
London Loves Business. “Asking prices of homes in London are actually falling, according to a report by property agents Propcision. The study found that roughly 40% of properties listed for sale in Earl’s Court have had their price cut since coming to market. While 35% of properties listed for sale in Chelsea and Knightsbridge have seen a price reduction, 29% of properties in Hammersmith and Fulham have seen asking prices falling too.”
“Michelle Ricci, co-founder of Propcision, said: ‘The data suggests that we are seeing resistance in the central London market. To make an analogy, it’s like throwing a ball into the air, at some point the ball will stop moving upward and shift downward. In statistics, we call this a point of resistance…There are particular areas of vulnerability that may start to show demonstrable evidence of a downward trend - most notably new-builds.’”
The Daily Express. “Sales interest from property investors plunged by 27 per cent in March from the same month last year, showed data from Rightmove. The new tax was introduced to make it longer and more it difficult for investors to secure a profit on buy-to-let. More tax measure to reduce landlords profits are to be brought in next year. This appears to have put buyers off investing in property to rent, with a slowdown in investor spurchases, according to the property listing site.”
“Sam Mitchell, Rightmove’s head of lettings, said: ‘This waning of interest definitely seems to predict a slowdown in the buy-to-let market, but what’s not yet clear is if this will only turn out to be a short-term pause.’ The drop in investor interest already appears to be feeding through to house prices in parts of London. Asking prices in some of the most exclusive areas have dropped by more than 10 per cent this year, it was recently revealed. Some critics have predicted new build flat prices could plunge by as much as 20 per cent this year.”
The Independent. “House prices are always interesting and hugely important to the economy, but something is happening in London in recent weeks that gives them a special significance. It is a twist: central London prices are falling, particularly in the so-called super-prime postcodes such as SW1, but outer suburban prices are rising, in some cases sharply.”
“Of course the fall in central areas may not just be fear of Britain become more isolationist, and tax disincentives for foreign purchasers may also be having an effect. In addition, there are a lot of luxury flats hitting the market, especially along the Thames and this may be holding down prices too.”
“At any rate, according to some calculations from Land Registry stats made by Bloomberg, SW1 (that’s Belgravia and Victoria) is down 7.6 per cent year-on-year, and W2 (just north of Hyde Park) is down 12.2 per cent. As for the Crossrail impact, it doesn’t open until 2019 but already there seem to be mini-booms close to its stations. For example, prices to the West in Ealing (in W13) are up nearly 30 per cent, and to the East by Stratford (in E10) are up 28 per cent.”
The Guardian. “There has been a failure in both the media and government to properly diagnose the cause of high house prices. Until the causes – our systems of money and planning – are properly understood, we cannot hope to fix the problem. The standard solution is: ‘we need to build more,’ but this is not a simple supply-and-demand issue. Between 1997 and 2007 the housing stock grew by 10%, but the population only grew by 5%. If house prices were a function of supply and demand, they should have fallen slightly over this period. They didn’t. They rose by more than 300%.”
“The cause of house price rises is the unrestrained supply of something else: money. Mortgage lending over the same period went up by 370%, thinktank Positive Money’s research shows. It was newly created debt that pushed up prices in a decade of extraordinarily loose lending, which gave birth to a national obsession. Houses were no longer places to live, but financial assets. Property owners became immensely wealthy without actually doing anything.”
“When you have runaway inflation such as this, the Bank of England has a responsibility to quash it, usually by putting up interest rates. But – and here is the great sleight of hand – the Bank has seen fit not to include house prices in its measures of inflation. So, throughout the 90s and 00s, they could then ‘prove’ inflation was low or moderate and interest rates meandered lower. Meanwhile, more and more mortgages were issued, and so more and more money was created, and it pushed up prices. The government didn’t mind.”
“The fraud persists today. The Bank of England says inflation is 0.3%. Really? With house prices up by 10% last year?”
“When you make money this cheap, you create bubbles. Combining a money system that requires ever-expanding debt to function with a national policy of ignoring where that money goes is asking for trouble. And trouble is what we have.”
“The fraud persists today.”
Wholesale, widespread and tacitly endorsed.
‘The standard solution is: ‘we need to build more,’ but this is not a simple supply-and-demand issue. Between 1997 and 2007 the housing stock grew by 10%, but the population only grew by 5%. If house prices were a function of supply and demand, they should have fallen slightly over this period. They didn’t. They rose by more than 300%.’
‘The cause of house price rises is the unrestrained supply of something else: money’
These are things I try to tell posters all the time. You can’t just build your way out of a bubble.
I was thinking the other day; isn’t it amazing that California houses now cost way, way more than similar shacks just across the state border? And along the same lines, house prices in Phoenix, or Texas or just about anywhere, magically rise to just around the government backed loan maximum. Same in Canada.
“They rose by more than 300%.”
It’s “the land!” Nope.
But “labor!”. Nope.
Well “materials!”. Nope.
“Building permits!”(lol) Nope.
It’s overpriced 300% as a result of fraud. And drew in millions of dunces. You don’t go from $50/sq ft (lot labor materials and profit) to $200/sq ft due to minor fluctuations in input costs. When someone says “well prices have been far higher for far longer in ___(fill in the blank with location) simply means fraud is entrenched much deeper for a far longer duration.
‘At the turn of the century, according to Nationwide data, the average first-time buyers’ house price was at a 4.3 multiple of their average salary. Now that figure has billowed out to around 10.1. Another negative side effect is said to be a prioritization in recent years by U.K. developers of building luxury developments instead of desperately needed affordable accommodation. Transparency International cites house price manipulation and the growth of ‘ghost’ areas as concerns. Indeed, an Evening Standard investigation in 2014 revealed £3 billion worth of London mansions sit empty’
Rental watch would say they need to build more.
‘in 2014 revealed £3 billion worth of London mansions sit empty’
April 2016 update: £ 2.3 billion.
I seem to recall reading that “ordinary” houses are not being built in the UK and that what is being built are those stupid megabuck condos and mansions which the average Brit can’t afford and that are being sold to foreign crooks.
Building more mansions won’t lower the prices of entry level housing.
Building more entry level housing will lower the prices of entry level housing.
We are seeing the effects now of building more apartments on rents…vacancy rates ticked up, and rent growth ticked down.
Given the massive excess, empty and defaulted inventory in the US and globally, there isn’t a need to build more residential structures.
‘Building more entry level housing’
But that’s not what’s being built. Even on the apartments it almost 100% A or above. And the B,C,D stuff is getting bought, renovated and rents jacked up. “The land costs too much to build anything else” they say. Rents will come down alright, but I’d bet a good deal of the multi-family will be foreclosed. Then rents will really come down. Section 8 with granite counter-tops, here we come! I remember in Verde Santa Fe near Sedona, when a brand new house in a golf community started advertising rents “section 8 welcome!” Never lived in; people camped out to buy them pre-construction. In a couple years half the houses were in foreclosure.
I was just thinking; the problem with “solve the affordability issue by building more” is basically, “cause a whole bunch of people to go into default”.
It would seem far more preferable to cut back on lending and raise interest rates when you see prices getting wacky. And don’t say it can’t be done; Singapore is doing it, and to a lesser extent London, New Zealand, Australia. Even Canada is making feeble attempt to rein it in.
You may say, “but when do they know it’s wacky?” That’s a problem; Yellen doesn’t know, Watt doesn’t know. The best answer is to remove all subsidies/government backing and let the market determine prices based on what consumers want, incomes, and private market based lending guided by an non-manipulated appraisal process.
“The land costs too much to build anything else”
Actually, it’s the labor costs.
I just spoke with a builder today who was looking building/selling a more affordable product, and I asked him why the business plan only works with a very low land value (buying finished lots for below replacement cost).
The answer was that the downturn was so bad that lots of construction workers left the industry, and they haven’t come back–and now that the workers are needed again, there aren’t enough of them–labor costs are high.
“It would seem far more preferable to cut back on lending and raise interest rates when you see prices getting wacky.”
We’ve been over this ground before, but it is worth repeating…there are two schools of thought on this:
1. That prices are high because interest rates are low (which allow people to borrow more money and pay more for homes); and
2. Prices are high because demand is outstripping supply.
I think there are elements to both, but I believe the supply story is more compelling. Why do I think this?
1. In some of the most overheated markets, home prices are such that low-down payment loans don’t exist. People are putting 20%+ percent down in places like Santa Clara County, NYC, SF, OC, etc. These are jumbo loans, with jumbo down payments. Are low interest rates driving these markets? Or too much demand and too little supply? As before, I think both, but it’s more because of lack of supply…why?
2. Inland of the “hot” markets, there is more supply of housing relative to demand, and 3% loans are available…but home prices are still way below peak levels. Low interest rates aren’t boosting home prices very much.
So, in markets where less leverage is used, prices rose much faster, and in markets where more leverage is used, prices rose much slower. If low interest rate debt was the only and/or main factor, you wouldn’t see this dynamic.
Low interest rates are one thing…actually being able to borrow money with those rates is another.
Take a look at Figure 3 of the this CoreLogic blog posting:
https://www.corelogic.com/blog/authors/archana-pradhan/2016/03/credit-availability-trends.aspx#.VxADl_krJhE
Credit is still tight relative to 2001.
In other words any effect from lower interest rates is diminished due to the tightness of credit. Again, a bigger factor, IMHO is supply/demand dynamics.
Look at markets that are showing cracks…NYC condos, FL condos, etc. Why are they cracking? It’s not because interest rates rose in those markets. It’s because a huge amount of supply was added.
Again, I believe that BOTH supply/demand and interest rates play a role in home prices. BOTH.
But at this point, given the tightness of credit, and the fact that new home starts haven’t come close to recovering to a historical “normal” level, I believe that price increases are more likely to be driven more because of supply/demand considerations than because of low interest rates.
‘The answer was that the downturn was so bad that lots of construction workers left the industry, and they haven’t come back’
Yeah, all those Spanish speaking, imported construction guys I’ve videoed working on Sunday are the real high peso pencil breaker. You’d believe anything.
Rental_Fraud you truly are the great contortionist.
‘Combining a money system that requires ever-expanding debt to function with a national policy of ignoring where that money goes is asking for trouble. And trouble is what we have.’
One could say this about a lot of places these days.
One could say this about a lot of places these days.
You mean like the whole world?
Yeah, I wonder why the media hasn’t connected some dots. Housing prices falling in London, Aberdeen, Hong Kong, Miami, Manhattan, Houston, Brazil, some first tier cities in China, Dubai, Alberta, Brazil, Sydney, Kenya, Namibia, Nigeria. These were all hot, hot, hot not that long ago.
Foreclosures up 370% in North Dakota:
http://www.realtytrac.com/news/foreclosure-trends/q1-2016-u-s-foreclosure-market-report/
‘Don’t look now, but hell may have frozen over. The sun may be beginning to rise in the west and set in the east—and Wall Street may be giving suckers an even break. Why do I mention these most improbable things?’
‘Because the one absolute, guaranteed, all-weather prediction that I have made in my forty-plus years of writing about business, money, and investing has just been proven wrong.’
‘How so? Because the one thing that I said would never be worth less than you paid for it is now worth four percent less than it was on Saturday.’
‘What I’m talking about are Forever stamps. You know, the gummed pieces of paper you buy that have no fixed price, but can always be used to mail up to one ounce of first class mail. On Saturday, these stamps sold for 49 cents each. On Sunday, they fell to 47 cents. It was the first decline in first class rates since 1919.’
“The Entire Status Quo Is A Fraud”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-14/entire-status-quo-fraud
‘Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday that monetary policy has reached the outward bounds of its effectiveness without another round of quantitative easing.’
“Monetary policy … has done everything it can unless you want to put additional QEs on. They’re not helping that much in the sense that ultimately determines whether or not you’re getting an effect from the QEs” beyond increasing price-to-earnings ratios in the stock market, he said during an interview on CNBC.”
“There’s no real evidence that we’re getting an impact on lending and on the economy picking up,” he said.’
‘Greenspan said he disagreed with International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde that negative interest rates create a net positive impact. Lagarde offered the assessment earlier.’
‘Japanese and European policymakers have pushed some key rates into negative territory.’
I just got this in an email:
3431 COAST VIEW DRIVE, MALIBU, CA | $4,575,000
‘Just Reduced!
This Mid-Century Modern revival features all new finishes and amazing ocean views of the Queens Necklace, Cross Creek, Surfrider Beach and the Malibu Colony. The main house is 2900 sq. ft. plus a detached 1400 sq. ft. guest house with kitchen/living area and its own master bath. This property has a pool and a large flat backyard area. Situated on over an acre, this residence features Fleetwood doors and windows, a Bulthaup kitchen, slate tile, and hardwood flooring throughout. Located in one of Malibu’s most exclusive ocean view neighborhoods. Parking for about 8 cars.’
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3431-Coast-View-Dr-Malibu-CA-90265/20554296_zpid/
04/11/16 Price change $4,575,000-8.4%
11/18/15 Price change $4,995,000-4.9%
08/05/15 Price change $5,255,000-10.9%
06/08/15 Listed for sale $5,900,000+120%
07/01/14 Sold $2,680,000-4.1%
06/13/14 Pending sale $2,795,000
06/03/14 Listed for sale $2,795,000
I drove through Malibu on my way to Santa Monica this past Tuesday and was surprised to see so many coastal homes on the market. Especially the ones on the ocean.
This guy is trying to double his money in two years. I would sell too if I could.
They’re gonna get skinned alive.
This guy is trying to double his money in two years. I would sell too if I could.
Why work when you can make 2 million+ on a flip? That’s more than most people will earn in a lifetime. Work is for the “little people”.
With collapsing housing demand, there isn’t a buyer in sight for a fraction of what he paid.
So it is.
310 days on Zillow! Moar price cuts!
Fort Lauderdale, FL Housing Market Craters; Prices Plunge 8% YoY As Housing Correction Accelerates Statewide
http://www.zillow.com/fort-lauderdale-fl/home-values/