A ‘Flesh-Wound’ For The Housing Bubble
The Street.com has this editorial on the housing bubble and the press. “The Business Press Maven, who owns an obscenely overvalued home, wanted nothing more than for the loft in real estate prices to, uh, loft forever. And the real estate party is over. If you don’t believe me, just look at your favorite struggling homebuilder stock or bedraggled REIT or check the vast majority of increasingly grim housing numbers.”
“So where does that leave you, the investor? At high risk of being goaded into a mistake.” “Overvalued markets are always justified by the business media with constant story lines about how different things are this time. Once it starts to become apparent (like now) that there is such a thing as gravity, we enter the classic second state of business media delusion.”
“Having justified the bubble for so long, the business media never simply walks away. What always comes, instead, are a series of articles about how the worst of the damage has already been done and that it’s no big deal, just part of the natural course of things, a flesh wound. Moreover, that there are safe havens amid the carnage or that there are actual bargains!”
“A key element to making the argument that there has been no true shift in the market is to deny the very fact that prices are starting to drop. This was done recently by Samuel Lieber, while speaking on CNBC. He sounded like a local real estate agent, trying to convince a young couple that they were not buying into a ‘down’ market but an ‘adjusting’ one.”
“‘We are,’ he said, ‘transitioning from a period where people had to pay the offer price or above to a period where they are looking at a more normalized bid/offer spread. It’s just they don’t know..where that proper pricing will be.’ Sounds like prices are plummeting, buddy.”
“Remember how in the wake of the Internet collapse, we saw legions of articles about stocks that were steals because though they had started getting hit, they would offer safe haven because of their strengths.”
“When you hear people honestly assessing the damage and professing no hope, that’s a bottom. When people are in denial and are slinging jargon, well, we ain’t there yet. Until such troubles are spoken about openly, a bottom is not in sight.”
“Remember how in the wake of the Internet collapse, we saw legions of articles about stocks that were steals because though they had started getting hit, they would offer safe haven because of their strengths.”
This is more and more like the tech bubble. Large capitalization stocks with zero earning potential. Now we have large mortgages with no way to pay them down/off. We have substitued dot.com with pre-construction.
One difference with the dot.com crash is magnitude of overvaluation. Many of those dot.coms had almost no real value. Housing’s value is far more in line with prices than the dot.coms. It would still cost a good amount to build a house and it would also cost a good amount to rent. And people need places to live. They didn’t need dot.com stock.
In other words, you won’t see the same % wipeout in housing. And as far as housing weakness goes - it varies based on location - market to market and within markets.
A great house in a top school district will never lose as much value as homes in undesirable neighborhoods. They’re just not making any more great school districts any more.
On the other hand in your incredibly overpriced markets, where the builders have created a huge supply and where investors account for a good portion of the activity, prices will almost certainly fall. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see as much as a 20% fall, at least in real dollars, in such markets.
You missed the analogy completely. IO/ARMS are the dot com stocks. The underlying houses are the “internet”. The internet survived, not the stock prices.
And what article did you read?
I don’t think he read any articles; just used his brain.
Valuation is based on fundamental factors, such the P/E ratio’s with stocks. Homes will come back in line with the fundamentals that support affordability. Fundamentals - that is what was being preached by the non-believers of the Tech stock boom, and no one wanted to believe them. Same applies here. We will revert back to “mean”, and fundamentals will apply once again.
I agree with you on the fundamentals. But it’s not all supply and demand. There is also always psychology and homeownership will always be far more influenced by emotions than stocks. When you just love a house, you will go a few extra bucks. And you will do everything you can not to foreclose even it means working an extra job.
The stock market is 100% investors. The housing market is 90% people who need a roof over their heads. Analogies between stock prices and home prices only work to a point.
Many of those dot.com stocks still and will always be valueless. Home prices will eventually come back.
Think of it this way. The train has stopped at the station and may not go anywhere for some time. But that gives people time to finally save the money to buy a train ticket. Eventually those people will board the train and the train will begin moving again and one day, in a few years, it will be once again hard to find a seat. It’s never not like this. As so many have pointed out, it’s not different this time. All that is different is the magnitude. Nobody knows how long the train will sit at the station. Nobody knows how much the price of a ticket will drop to. All we know is the train always starts up again.
i think a better train analogy would be that it has gone uphill, ran out of steam and now it has started sliding. folks should start on foot to catch it as the station is still full of people and they may not get a bargain if they just keep saving money and try to buy a ticket.
You bring up a good point about psychology and homeownership. Once everbody is bearish on housing and nobody wants to touch RE with a ten foot pole - then I’ll know it’s the time to buy.
I’ver got to disagree with your train analogy, however. You’re basically implying that after several years of unprecedented through-the-roof appreciation and speculation, we will be entering a period of flat to modestly down prices. Sorry, this isn’t how financial manias and speculative bubbles work. This is the mythical “soft-landing” scenario that RE shills so desperately hope for, but it won’t happen. First there needs to be the painful shake out period where all of the bad debt is liquidated. Today’s i/o neg-am suicide loan is fundamentally no different than a stock margin account and like so many stock speculators, FB’s are about to get the dreaded margin call.
“The stock market is 100% investors. The housing market is 90% people who need a roof over their heads. Analogies between stock prices and home prices only work to a point.”
Waiting2 — are you sure you are not a Realtor (TM), because you sure do talk the talk. The fact that stocks are “100% investors” should work in favor of stock market valuations that are more in line with fundamentals. It is the abysmal ignorance of many real estate “investers” regarding the connection between fundamental value and price that has pushed up housing prices to absurd levels, implying a larger drop to get us back to the value of a home as a depreciating asset and a place to live in.
Nobody knows how long the train will sit at the station. Nobody knows how much the price of a ticket will drop to. All we know is the train always starts up again.
I’d say buying a house for investment purposes will lead you to a derailment. Even buying a house to live in right now could be less than ideal — you might sit at the station for quite some time and there may be no air conditioning.
But if you already own a home, as about 65-70% of people do, selling the house to sit in a rental while prices come down is incredibly risky. It’s like giving your seat up on the train while it’s sitting in the station and going to a restaurant to have dinner. You return to the staion to get back on the train and instead you get that sickening feeling as you watch the train’s tail lights get smaller as it pulls away from the station.
Sure, of that 65-70% who own homes, a tiny percentage had no business buying and shame on the lenders. And there’s always a small percentage that has to sell because of job transfers, divorce, etc. But 95% of that 65-70% will simply sit in their seats.
Housing is cultural. Housing is Political. A house can be a prison. The high densities of “Smart growth” without the lifestyle components of abundant open space and cheap effiecient public transit devolves into human storage. Huge suburban lots and mini-estates can devolve into junk yards without a culteral aesthetic for “country living”. For the most part, our housing stack is constructed according to social and political dictates. We live in housing that did not anticipate our individual needs. And such housing shapes our social and political perspective. Very few people are therefor capable of LIVING IN or IMAGINING the house of their dreams, let alone bringing it to life. Most DREAM HOMES fulfill DREAMS of ACQUISITION and yeild very little, I feel, intrinsic well being - HENCE, the house as INVESTMENT paradigm.
Now get out the boxcutters for an exercise. Imagine that the concept of HOUSING was more flexible with respect to formal and functional boundaries such as : permanence or persistence of structures, materials, utility hookups, two cars in every garage, cars, garages, fences, canvas walls, centralized sanitation and water management…Obviously health and safety drive our building codes and that is good. But the narrow interpretation and implementaion has had other consequences.
Psychologists tell us that a dream about your house or houses you wish you lived in are dreams about OUR SELVES. If this is true, then the process probably also runs in reverse - the houses we occupy help to form our concept of self. And the houses we occupy are produced en masse according to a narrow set of rules.
Yes, housing is about psychology and yes it is emotional. But in our world of hombuilders and codes, 90% of buyers are function as dependents of the homebulders and code writers, in other words, like children. Our emotions on the subject are stunted and remain simple and uncomplex. We are vulnerable to abuse, and suffer it largely without complaint, as abused children do.
You know the saying about how you can judge a society by how it treats its dependents? Can we judge societies by how it it meets housing needs? And, I would say, housing is much more than a roof over the head, and much less than the grandiose manifestation of gratification for a bruised ego.
I remember your train analogy from last year, when you used it to demonstrate that prices would never drop. Now you’re using it to suggest that prices won’t fall to absolute zero. Congrats on a making a wonderful point that will be of great cheer to FB’s everywhere - their house value won’t plummet from the hights of speculative fever to absolute nothing. I’m sure that’ll be a great comfort; unfortunately, however, their housing debt will remain unchanged, which they may find problematic.
Your analogy sucked last year and you were wrong then; it still sucks and you’re still wrong now. The bridge is out ahead and it won’t be a soft landing. Let it go already.
from Getstucco. “The stock market is 100% investors. The housing market is 90% people who need a roof over their heads. Analogies between stock prices and home prices only work to a point.”
Not this market, in many regions (FLA,LV) it was over 50% speculators. One of the reasons for this asset bubble is that homes were treated as a way to make money. It will behave as all asset bubbles do. It is never different this time.
True, and this means much more than a 20% hit in bubble markets. Looks more like a 40-60% hit will be required to bring the mortgage/rent ratio back in line with historic norms. The house I’m currently renting would sell for around $550K (if any buyers could be found), but rents and incomes only support a price of around $220K, thus a 60% reduction is in order.
True. But once people can’t buy, they rent and then rent prices can skyrocket unless there is something like rent stabilization. With dramatically higher rents, people return to housing. I don’t dispute that in certain crazy markets the differential could be as high as 40%. I just think it’s temporary and as home prices fall, rents rise and boom, it’s no longer out of whack.
You ought to read a bit more often here, then, as I think you are ignoring the huge number of vacant homes in the US of A. These will weigh down both rents and purchase prices for the next fifteen years.
I would agree with you except you’ve forgotten about the effects of globalization and wage suppression. Wages are basically at 1997 levels (inflation adjusted) for most industries. This acts to keep a lid on any major upside movement in rents. Basically I’m saying that most folks simply can’t afford any more increase in mortgages or rents. If a landlord wants a rent increase, he can’t get it because the economy won’t support it, and if he feels he must have it to offset inflation, then renter will simply move in with the parents/kids/relatives, etc. and there will be many vacancies.
Come to think of it, globalization and associated wage suppression punches a giant hole through the inflationists’ theories. How can hyper-inflation happen when wages aren’t going to rise? BB can expand the money supply all he wants, but the only thing this will do is cause more asset bubbles and distortions. I guess you could say I’m more in the deflation camp, but I’ll change my mind as soon as I get a fat inflation rise at work (haha!)
What % of homes are vacant and how does that compare to the past? Would love to see a graph showing % of vacant homes over time.
Not inventory - because most inventory is inhabited. But vacant homes.
Again, in a stupidly overheated market, I don’t debate there wouldn’t be higher than average vacant homes. Something like condos in Miami comes to mind. But in most areas, I’d be surprised if actual vacant homes are hugely higher than in the past.
To get a handle on how many homes sit vacant, you might consider the number of houses in the last couple of years were purchased as “vacation properties” or “second homes”. Then you could multiple by the vacancy rate or rental properties. Just a suggestion.
My understanding is that this calculation will lead to an historically huge number.
First Quarter 2006 housing vacancies.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr106/q106tab1.html
I suspect the housing market has been presold for the next few years, due to fear of “being priced out forever”. So we might not see a huge leap in rental demand either.
Arwen,
Thanks for the housing vacancy data, which pretty much seals the case.
“It’s like giving your seat up on the train while it’s sitting in the station and going to a restaurant to have dinner. ”
Dude, we’ve got enough time to eat dinner, stay at the Marriott, go to Disneyworld the next day, visit the inlaws, then chill out for the next coupla years.
And there’s a train leaving every two minutes.
Which is why some renters stay renters for life. They wait too long and miss the train entirely. You can overthink and outsmart yourself if greed and wishful thinking get the better of you. I’m not saying being a renter for life is bad. But the reality is that all that money one could save by renting is not saved by most, even those who have made it their plan. What works out nicely on paper and what happens in real life can be altogether different.
On the other hand, most people who bought terribly expensive homes back in the 70’s are very glad they did. Over time, population will grow, greed will stay constant and those who buy homes to live in and stay in those houses for the long term will do fine. The short term flippers will be immolated, as they deserve.
Waiting,
I started shopping for a house in early 1995 in SoCal. Fortunately, the LA Times was reporting regularly on housing values, and throughout my home search I could see prices continuing to drop. “What’s the hurry?” I asked myself. Why buy a depreciating asset? Eventually I figured the bottom arrived, and I bought in 1996.
Was I being greedy? Absolutely not. Since then, the house has appreciated $500k, but it’s meaningless for me because it’s one of the places I live. If I sell, the only way I gain financially is to move to a cheaper area, which I’m not particularly interested in.
Yes, many of those stocks dropped over 50% or to darn near nothing. In fact, some of them dropped to nothing and their business model closed.
I doubt anyone truely expects that of housing prices… maybe a 50% decline from the peak, at most.
houses are more leveraged than stocks were, even at the height of the internet boom
The leverage is a very important point. When prices go the other way and interest rates climb leverage will be the key as long as lending tightens up stadards.
I see prices easily dropping further than 50% to 75%, since all prices are driven only by the very last sale. This market only moves a tiny percentage of housing each year…
I’ve come to the conclusion that lending standards will NOT tighten, at least not appreciably, at least not enough to make a difference for our purposes discussed here. There will always be tons of money sloshing about, and tons of lenders wanting to give it away and earn a fee, and tons of investors in the mortgage secondary market willing to take on hedged risk calculated in ever-newfangled ways.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the only factor that will pop this bubble, once and for all, is a collective realization by the American consumer that we’ve spent too much, and now we need to save. (After all, the money supply can be there, but nobody can force us to spend it.)
Judging from how utterly screwed (from a savings standpoint) my generation of boomers appears to be, I have no choice but to believe that this is exactly what will happen.
And, as credit tightens, leverage used to purchase evaporates. That leaves the most expensive homes far more vulnerable. Be thankful if you don’t have a $1M+ McMansion to unload next year or in ‘08. They will get wiped out far worse than more moderately priced dumps, as people’s expectations diminish along with credit. Look at asking price action on HousingTracker in LA. 75th percentile already off over $100K while median is almost flat. Higher priced homes are far more sensitive to interest rates…
http://www.benengebreth.org/housingtracker/location/California/LosAngeles/
All the loose $$$ was handed because of the low number of defaults. It was a trend that no one questioned might ever end and the number of lenders multiplied, competing and driving margins out of the business. Take a fw successive quarters where lenders get burned and that sentiment will turn abruptly. Just a matter of time…
I agree with AZ_BubblePopper. Once defaults escalate creditors will get nervous and tighten standards. Credit spreads will widen, further depressing prices.
RE is worse than stocks in terms of losses because it is highly leveraged. Once you are underwater on your equity you can actually owe money in excess of the value of your asset. With brokerage accounts you will get a margin call before your account goes negative.
Just a guess, but I think a 20% drop in housing prices would have the same effect on the economy as a 50% plunge in the stock market.
Still, companies keep issuing more shares of stock, just as the HBs keep adding more cars to the train.
The dot.com companies had “cash flow”, may be negative cash flow, but they did have sales and receivables, and some sort of potential to grow. A home owner sitting with an adjustable rate mortgage has a monthly ootgo that just keeps are eating him up, with rising payments and rising maintenance costs. When the dot.com went bust, people lost money. When the house.com goes bust, there goes the roof over your head. This is a whole lot worse than the dot.com
I once heard that Beverly Hills had a huge decline in the early 90’s. In some parts housing lost 50% of its value. Can anyone validate or disprove this information? If true, I can’t think of a more desirable neighborhood.
I know someone who bought there in 1972 for $175,000 and it seemed overpriced at the time. I’m sure prices went up and down since then, But now the home is woth about $5 million.
Listen, I Owned a home in Irvine,Ca. in 1988. I purchased it for $255,000 and by the bottom of the market there were 2 models like mine that sold for $195,000. That was a 24% drop and most people did not have funny loans! In fact it was so bad the County of Orange reduced property taxes!!!
Because most people buy homes with 10:1 or 20:1 leverage (even the traditional 20% down is 5:1 leverage), many stand to lose more than 100% of their investment on just a 5 or 10% decline in absolute prices. This is much worse than stocks.
“Now we have large mortgages with no way to pay them down/off”
Yeah, this is true no matter how crazy it sounds. If prices go down just a little and people can not sell because they can’t afford to and they cant afford the mortgage any more this could cause a real bust. I was driving in the Redondo Beach area this weekend and had a scary thought, what if there were tons of homes for sale and no one could afford to buy at even half of thier values now due to higher rates and falling values, could this happen?
Of course it could happen . . If the interest rates go to say 10% ,you could cut the price of the house in half ,and you would have the same affordability issues . Look at what happened in Japan . Look at what happen in Florida in 1926.
Just like in Japan , people will have to hold on to their overpriced properties because nobody will be buying . Talk about being a slave to a asset .
I guess you are right, it is scary stuff. The real problem in places like Cali. where I am is that some people will not be able to hold on because most purchases in the last few years were adjusable rates so many will be foreclosed on if they can not sell.
The Japanese had (and have) a very high savings rate to fall back upon. They can weather 15 years of housing deflation. I doubt very much that today’s American FB can withstand even 1 year of housing deflation without complete financial collapse. Most FB’s I know need at least 1 to 2 re-fi’s a year, and are dependent upon ever-escalating house prices and falling interest rates to remain solvent. Now we have neither.
This is why I believe the Bernanke Fed’s tough anti-inflation rhetoric will give way to rescue attempts…
And who is going buy US$ debt in such a scenario? Even the Asians have their limits. Bond yields would go into orbit.
Loss of global confidence in the US$ would lead to the end of superpower status for the US. I don’t think the US is ready for that - yet.
Just wait until the banks start getting the houses back via massive defaults. Banks do NOT sit around with the properties, they liquidate them for whatever they can get TODAY.
That often means taking 20, 30, 40, even 50 percent less than recent comps. I watched this happen in Denver in the late 1980s. It completely screws the market.
“Overvalued markets are always justified by the business media with constant story lines about how different things are this time. Once it starts to become apparent (like now) that there is such a thing as gravity, we enter the classic second state of business media delusion.”
—————————————————————————
“This time, it’s different” are the four most expensive words in the English Language.
- Ludwig von Mises -
“This time it’s different” at the homebuilders, because they have a new business model which will enable them to keep making profits right through a housing downturn…
http://tinyurl.com/8cqwt
Nice - I haven’t looked at their chart in a few months now. It just keeps going from bad to worse. If this doesn’t portend a crash in housing then nothing will!
They can make profits for a longer time in a declining market than the SFR, one factor that will be a catalyst for a steeper drop. With approx. 30% margin they can go down further than any 2005 buyer and make money, not lose it.
That, precisely, is the “Holy Crap!” that existing home sellers do not see in their rear-view mirror. Th extend it further, builders can and will operate at zero profit for a while, in order to put food on the tables of their best subs.
And what are their carring costs on the land they purchased at the top of the market with no prospect of turning it into houses or reselling it to the next sucket. Their books are as crooked as Enron, and the 30% margin is on existing houses, ]
they have negative margin on all the ones they haven’t built. I think Wall Street understands the homebuilders BS better than we think, check out the 2 year charts of Pulte, KB Homes,
Wait until the builders find themselves competing with the banks.
For “the rest of us” who are willing to live in non-bubble areas, at least where I look, the small-city non-national builders usually hold very little inventory in vacant land. That’s because there is plenty more available. I would be more likely to buy a lot and contract with a builder to build my house on it, than to do so on a builder-owned lot, but both are possible and less expensive by the day.
Cool windowdressing at the end of the day for Toll…
It is different this time. The hole that we’re about to fall in is a lot deeper and there isn’t a easy way out. Think 30’s.
I think we’re at the end of the denial stage. Some of the markets that are further along in the cycle, with huge inventories, will begin seeing drops in inventory levels as stubborn FBs take their homes off the market and decide they can wait a while (as if things are likely to improve in the next year or so). The media and the NAR will conveniently misinterpret this and draw in another crop of mega-suckers. Looking for 20% declines to show up by the end of Q2 ‘07…
Yes, I am more pessimistic than I was even 2 mos ago. I am thinking D or a mini-D…..
Your fears are unfounded.
I see interest costs so high and credit so tight we go to basically an all-cash society…
Okay, nnv, what part of the US is in better shape than in 1929?
I found it interesting that the Town Hall CNBC did recently on the Housing Market still had three biased housing bulls (Mortgage guy, Century 21 guy and Lereah) versus only one guy who didn’t have his wealth tied to the housing market going up (Prof Shiller from Yale).
I think last year when housing was booming on their Town Hall they had about 5 house bulls and one bear so it’s some sort of progress that the ratio is getting better! Of course last year no one would listen to the bear at all - he got some respect this year.
I think Professor Shiller didn’t put across his point very well. He let the bullies run away with the show. In in my opinion the show was bias towards the real estate industry. Not a balanced show at all. There is no doubt in my mind that we’re heading for a major correction. The market is grossly over valued. I’d agree that it’s different this time. This time things are going to get real ugly.
One thing is for sure — you can’t out bulls!t a bull! Don’t worry — history will be kind to Professor Shiller’s dire prognostications.
I highly recommend everyone on this blog go see “Thank you for Smoking”. Its about a lobbyist for the tobacco industry but he could have just as well have been working for real estate industry. Its a very funny movie. And you see why very smart economist like Shiller don’t stand a chance against professional spinners.
shiller scked- belongs back in the classroom
didn’t suzy orman stuff them though?
DEFINATE downturn” she said
That’s what you need against these guys….a type-A personality bitch!
Shiller is a true academic economist, a true researcher, with a temperament to match. He’s not by nature a debater or advocate, and he doesn’t come off too well when squared off those types. He just trys to quietly make his points.
“That’s what you need against these guys….a type-A personality bitch!”
maybe we can get Ann Coulter after she’s done with her book tour…LOL!~
No. We are trying to get the FACTS across. She specializes in shock talk with no backup. All entertainment for those who agree with her. No substance. We need rational people, not prone to hysterics, to point out economic data and educate the general public on how all markets cycle.
So Ben - how would you feel about appearing on CNBC?
Yes, Suzie came off as having much bigger balls then Schiller did…
To bad she wasn’t sitting in the hot seat next to the:
“Now is a great time to buy!” Realtwhores®
Glorified sign spinners, all of them…
shiller was a girlie man
no one challenged lieRAH
Suzy orman(gag) was good she said “ABSOLUTELY in a down turn”
Suze came off as having way more balls than Schiller.
She should have been in the hot seat next to the RealtWhores®
More or less they were a tape recording: “Now is a great time to Buy!”
Glorified sign spinners, all of them. Especially the fat guy from the big realty company, Prudential or whatever.
and
However, the slowdown is expected to be gradual with strength in nonresidential building and government building projects expected to cushion the decline in housing.
Why is word “expected” used twice in one sentence?
from housing starts
http://tinyurl.com/jlras
gov spending = taxes, always has always will
hense it’s not true investment
cap ex is supposed to take up for housing
so far not even close
dell,msft,sisc all sckin wind
When these tech companies are expanding elsewhere while shrinking their base here, wouldn’t you think Capex will go up in those areas.
IBM comes to mind..They are expanding in India. I am sure they need Capex there, not here, to help operations.
I think Fuchs was probably thinking of Monty Python’s Holy Grail when he wrote about the flesh wound.
Yes, definitely, which leads to a following line from that movie:
“What are you going to do?! Bite me?”
In this case, I think the answer to that will be “yes” for many, many people.
The actual line was “What are you going to do — BLEED on me?!” which is even more fitting, as condo-flippers are hemmoraghing more and more with each passing month.
Opps! You’re right…silly me.
Bad Zut, naughty Zut…
One has a sudden vision of the Holy Hand Grenade skit, with Dr. Bernanke solemnly reading out the instructions for the use of the Holy Fed. Quarter Point Increases :D.
You all beat me to it:
http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/wound.wav
lol - that movie is most definetely a classic. Today’s FB is the fat man in the Meaning of Life. “It’s just a waffer thin mortgage….Oh alright then…” KA-BOOM!
“That Housing market is DEAD.
“Well, maybe it is a little poorly.”
HELOC HELL…
“After the Fed’s move Thursday, most banks raised their prime rates to 8.25 percent, up from 4 percent in 2004. So most homeowners with equity lines are now paying at least 8.25 percent on that debt.
Rates on some of these lines are set one or two percentage points above the prime rate — meaning some borrowers are paying 10 percent or more in interest. Depending on the amount of the home equity loan, those increases can really hurt.
Dawn Ruiz, who’s currently trying to sell a house in Merced, said she has a home equity line on which she’s been making interest-only payments, but she hasn’t been watching the interest rate closely.
“I don’t want to know,” she said.
The monthly interest-only payment for a homeowner with a $150,000 home equity line at 8.25 percent would be $1,031.25, said Scott Goodrich of Monterey Bay Mortgage in Capitola. In 2004, when the prime rate was at 4 percent, payment on a similar loan would have been $500 a month”
…said she has a home equity line on which she’s been making interest-only payments, but she hasn’t been watching the …
Now there’s a good idea, interest only on a heloc. Lifetime servitude. Yeah, stick your head in the sand, that’ll make it go away.
My thought exactly. Who came up with this silly invention of a loan that would never pay off principal. If a lender tried to sell me on one of those products I would first laugh at him and then promptly show him the door.
There is no fix that BB can devise for our nation’s debt situation…
I could see builders using these loans to fund construction. But home buyers? Can standards deteriorate further than this?
Playing Monday Morning loan officer again, assuming someone bought a home in 2003 for $200,000. Borrower has 5% to put down on a home in Florida (anywhere in the state, doesn’t matter). Has choice between 95% loan with PMI or 80/15 to avoid PMI. LO talks borrower into the 80/15 because of the lower payment and PMI is not tax deductible. Assuming the rate on the 80 is 5.625%, the 15 is a heloc at prime (then 4.00%) + 1.00%, PI payment is $1,046.05. Assuming the 95% is 5.50%, and PMI is .78%, PIMI payment is $1,202.30. 80/15 is the better choice right? Now 2006, heloc is up to 9.25% new PI payment is $1,152.30. Still better than paying PMI right? Only now the home has appreciated 50% since the loan closed and the borrower can have PMI removed, new PI payment is $1,078.80, all of which is paying down the principal. But at least they have their tax right off.
The contrarian in me thinks that once the media runs with the story of a RE collapse it will be time for a short-term rally in prices. IMO the RE market has started the slippery slide down the slope of hope. I know that there will be carnage, but it may take several years for it to play out.
deflation_guy,
“I know that there will be carnage, but it may take several years for it to play out.” Yup, we should be so lucky. Keep working, saving, and investing in the right areas. Then between 5-10 years start buying real estate again. Ladder up the purchases and sit back and wait. No mortgages please.
That should secure your retirement income. Let the DINKs do all the work for you.
crashmaster,
You must have been reading my playbook. Have been in mostly cash since 2000 (and have out-performed the S&P). I think that stocks have much further to fall too. I am patiently waiting for bargains in both RE and stocks. When cap rates on decent properties are around 10 and the yield on the S&P is 4% or better. May be a ways away, but that’s my game plan.
All the best to you.
Just a test…sorry folks.
“business media delusion.”……….I like it. That should be the title in the guide above Bloomberg, CNBC, and the like.
the correction will occur after the 2008 elections. our govt. has alot to do with the economics of housing. without the drop in interest rates, we would be in a major recession. you cant ship jobs overseas or cut jobs at home, allow rising cost in energy and goods and keep the economy going. of course no one wanted to save money, there was no return. i was barely making 1% interest on my savings for the past few years.
prediction: interest rates will go up 1 to 1 1/2 % per year, pricing out the remaining lower - middle class. as adj loans adj and foreclosures rise, prices will dive down up to 50% in some communities. by the end of the 2008 election, the housing bubble will completely go bust. what people dont talk about is the govt. influence on housing.
Case in point:
Housing’s $457 billion tax savings
Average U.S. household deducts $9,650 in mortgage interest
By Amy Hoak, MarketWatch
Last Update: 2:38 PM ET Jun 29, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/z2abx
One thing to consider though: if you are married filely jointly then your standard deduction is $10,000. IMO, the tax benefit is not as great as most people think.
It is great if you are in the upper 10% of earners living in a large home with a humongous mortgage interest bill to pay every year. Otherwise, as you suggest, it is only as good as the amount by which your itemized deductions clear the standard deduction.
(I was driving in the Redondo Beach area this weekend and had a scary thought, what if there were tons of homes for sale and no one could afford to buy at even half of thier values now due to higher rates and falling values, could this happen?)
No. Investors would swoop in. We’ll all end up renting from those whose assets are not in US Dollars, for whom the property will be even cheaper.
There always seems to be a counterweight.
But why would those “investors” buy into a falling market? Nobody wants to catch a falling knife.
Greed. Eventually people will decide it’s time to buy and buy they will because of greed.
I try to never engage in ad hominem attacks, but you’re really an idiot. People aren’t greedy to lose money when prices are falling; and once stampeded, these herd investors won’t buy in for another decade.
You’re the same bull troll who last year in this forum argued that prices would never fall; now you’re here with your rhetorical “waiting2pounce” pseudonym, trying to persuade everyone that now’s the time to buy in because prices have fallen slightly but will magically rise again soon. Give it up, you’re not making any converts in your folly.
Investing is the one place people feel much safer buying when things are overpriced than when they are underpriced. Many people didn’t enter the stock market until 2000 because they finally got to a point where watching others make money was making them miserable. (They also bought the most expensive thing, the NASDAQ instead of being well diversified.) When it fell 85% many pulled their money at a loss and sat in a corner licking their wounds. Those who stayed put or bought more as prices fell (the entire market not just the hottest sector) saw their net worth return and grow.
Same with housing. Many people bought in the last two years because it was a “sure thing” (greed), or they would be “priced out forever” (fear.) They did so through insane financing they did not understand. (80% of buyers in San Diego in 2005 used ARM’s.) Now they will lose their home or take big losses. In five years they will still be licking their wounds and too terrified to invest in real estate for years and years. (Until it becomes overpriced again and thus “a sure thing.”)
Investor psychology is fascinating. People love to jump on the tail end of bubbles and then have an excuse to stay out of markets because that asset (whatever it is at the time) is the worst asset ever. Same as it’s the best asset ever after it appreciations above the mean.
Robert Campbell has a quote by Warren Buffet (that I can’t find - sorry) that basically says “High price equals high risk equals low returns. Low price equals low risk equal high returns.” People are inclined to buy the high priced asset because it seems safer. Those of us who wait for assets to go on sale will do much better. And real estate (according to decades worth of fundamental analysis) is about to go on sale. It’s not different this time. The same ratios are out of whack as they were in the 80’s and 90’s when housing prices fell. Unfortunately, this time, thanks to creative financing, more people are going to huddled in a corner licking their wounds.
I believe Buffett said to be fearful when everyone is greedy and greedy when everyone is fearful.
Anyway, I liked your post and think you are spot on. All people need to do to be successful in investing is to follow the fundamentals and ignore emotions. When the S&P is yielding 4% or more then stocks will be a bargain. When it is about the same price to rent as to buy then RE is a bargain. Pretty simple
Some will, to be sure. However, paying property taxes on foreign soil in a flat market is a long-term bummer.
“i think a better train analogy would be that it has gone uphill, ran out of steam and now it has started sliding. folks should start on foot to catch it as the station is still full of people and they may not get a bargain if they just keep saving money and try to buy a ticket”.
So are you saying that you should try to buy quickly if prices fall? It’s the age old question of a bird in the hand versus two in the bush.
“…you are ignoring the huge number of vacant homes in the US of A. These will weigh down both rents and purchase prices for the next fifteen years.”
Stucco - I believe the vast majority of vacant housing units are seasonal use homes. In other words, it’s OK in many cases that they are vacant.
I believe that when you are looking at vacation meccas, particularly warm weather vacation meccas where many may want to retire, many of the homes are purchased for seasonal use. Many are purchased for seasonal use now, full time use upon retirement.
Second homes are luxuries and will be the first to get sold off. But a vacant seasonal home being sold off in say San Diego doesn’t affect too many people outside of that market and all RE markets are local.
“I believe the vast majority of vacant housing units are seasonal use homes.”
I guess we are both entitled to believe as we wish, but having lived in CA for the duration of the bubble, I can tell you that specuvestors have made massive incursions to areas of the residential real estate market that are not, IMO, “vacation homes” in any way, shape, or form. This has driven prices of traditional SFRs through the roof, and led to the building boom in McMansions. If you include $1m McMansions with enough bedrooms to comfortably house a family of seven in your definition of “vacation homes”, then perhaps I can agree with you.
Nope, for the most part they would not be vacation homes. And if there are huge numbers of non-seasonal use homes vacant with for sale signs (as opposed to just being on the market), then the bigger the price drop.
I’m in Portland, Maine and inventory has been steadily decreasing. The builders have never gone crazy here. Also, we’re by no means built out so I think that prevented our prices from getting as overinflated as some other areas.
Poplars grow amazingly fast up here, but they also die off faster. The oaks grow far more slowly, but they can be around for centuries and withstand all kinds of stresses. We have just never had hyper-inflation in our home prices.
“We have just never had hyper-inflation in our home prices.”
Neither has Cali, dating back to the first housing boom-bust cycle in the late 1800s. Rather, the rule has always been that of high aplitude wave motion — large crests, which suck in speculative demand, followed by the inevitable bust, with lots of REO to go around for the lenders. It just so happens that the current crest is the largest since 1890, and I expect the subsequent trough will also be the deepest.
“amplitude” …
Just noticed a house in a nearby development just went on the market so I looked it up on Realtor.com:
“Stately 6,010 s.f. 5 BR Colonial on 1.15 acres in the Falmouth Country Club. Beautiful great rm w/ cathedral clng, fplc, & custom built ins. Gourmet kitchen,formal LR & DR, 6 bay gar. fits 9 toys,1,500 s.f. in law apt, sunroom, 2 offices,patio & beautiful landscaping”.
The asking price on this is $1.1 million. The house is extremely well built and overlooks a fairway. I can’t imagine too many buyers needing garage space to park nine cars, but I’d guess some of that space could be converted to something else.
But think about it - 6,000 square feet in the best or second best school district in the state on a fancy private golf course 10 minutes to the largest city in the state. At “only” $1.1 million, it will likely get picked up quickly by someone from away where $1.1 million might only buy half as much house. They just keep coming and coming from away with piles of money.
We bought our house five years ago, so while I wouldn’t be surprised to see prices roll back, I am not all that worried. Now if I’d paid top dollar last year in Boston or NY, I’d be pretty concerned. The way it has been working is their losses become our gains.
Good point about how to buy a house: (1) collect price/sq ft data from every godforsaken place, (2) preview a few pics to make sure the garage space is large enough, and (3) submit an offer using that diminishing pile of money in the next room.
Consider yourself lucky if you don;t lose your shirt whenever you bought.
From Arwen U.’s post above:
First Quarter 2006 housing vacancies.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr106/q106tab1.html
- Shows Census Department’s quarterly figures on “Rental Vacancy Rate” and “Homeowner Vacancy Rate” from 1960:I through 2006:I.
- Average & Standard Deviation of Rental Vacancy Rates over the period were 7.0 & 1.4.
- The first time Rental Vacancy Rate exceeded 9.5 was 2003:II, and it has subsequently remained on the range from 9.5 to 10.4.
- Average & Standard Deviation of Homeowner Vacancy Rates over the period were 1.46 & 0.27.
- The first time the Homeowner Vacancy Rate reached a level of 2.0 was 2005:IV, and it bumped up to 2.1 in 2006:I.
Conclusion: With the possible exception of certain local markets in Maine, prices and rents both need to fall in order to absorb the excess supply of vacancies.
Redux:
This housing bubble will result in a national, if not international, depression. It’s everywhere and has permeate markets which would never have had any housing appreciation on their own. There’s no connection between housing and its respective regional job market in any manner. I think Bakersfield CA is one of the best cases for this point.
My advice to fellow renters, with enough of a savings to put in a 20% down payment after a 40+% correction, is to not bother. You’ll need that money to survive periods of joblessness in the decade to follow. Cash is king during a deflationary cycle.
No doubt everyone wants to retire in lovely Bakersfield eventually, so the house prices don’t have to correlate with the job market.
How do you know the government policy response (Bernanke, Paulson, etc) will not steer us through the rough waters ahead?
Geez, maybe because these successive captains of the Titanic has been steering directly for the iceberg for years now??
lol
In response to Waiting2pounce
Comparing the real estate bubble to the dot com bust IS appropriate. While it might appear from one perspective that the % loss was much greater with dot com stock, keep in mind you only lost what you had “invested”. With real estate, especially with very little “invested” you will surely lose all of that and likely much more because of the underlying debt.
So in that sense real estate is worse because you can lose far more than you ever put into it.
Very well said. People fail to realize just how leveraged this market is.