Real Estate Crash thread

[ass-to-mouth]

Robert Shiller: "echo" bubble possible in some markets.

"Another Bubble" in Housing? It Could Happen, Says Yale's Robert Shiller
Posted Jul 13, 2009 08:30am EDT by Aaron Task

The slowing rate of decline in home prices is likely to continue but the housing market is "still in an abysmal situation," says Robert Shiller, a professor of economics at Yale. The co-creator of the S&P Case-Shiller Index, which tracks national housing prices, says the housing market could "languish for many years," due to the "huge inventory" of unsold holds, "shadow inventory" of homes kept off the market by banks and other potential sellers, and "a lot of financial problems."

But incredibly, the author of Animal Spirits (with George Akerlof), The Subprime Solution and Irrational Exuberance believes "there could be another bubble" in housing, once the excess inventory is worked off. "This is not my more probable scenario [but] people have gotten very speculative in their attitudes toward housing," he says.

Shiller cites Boston as one area for a potential echo-bubble in housing, noting its typically volatile market did not fall in the past two years as dramatically as "more bubbly" cities like Phoenix. The professor and bubble expert isn't predicting it, but the fact he's even mulling the possibility is eye-opening, to say the least.

Whether you think the housing bubble is going to collapse further or reinflate, Shiller's firm MacroMarkets recently listed two indexes on the NYSE Arca that allow investors to place their bets (or hedge their own housing exposure): The bullish Major Metro Up (NYSE: UMM) and the bearish Major Metro Down (NYSE: DMM).

Going forward, Shiller hopes to offer similar securities for specific cities and geographic areas.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/278952/%22Another-Bubble%22-in-Housing-It-Could-Happen-Says-Yale's-Robert-Shiller?tickers=UMM,DMM,XHB,DHI,KBH,LEN,PHM

[powder11]

It should be obvious to anyone why this doesn't actually work. If the only people that can afford to be in the market are people who are already in the market, home values cannot grow indefinitely -- because people leave the market or size down due to death, retirement, etc.

This is basic economics. It's impossible for money to be made, net, if a fixed number of people simply sell the same houses back and forth to each other. Eventually some of them will be unable to sell their house, and they (or, more likely, their bank) loses the profits everyone else made. And that's exactly what has happened.

I'm not saying you can't make money being one of the people in the middle, and if you have, good for you -- but that doesn't make 2 + 2 = 5.3. You've been fooled by the impact of steadily lowering interest rates and lending standards (i.e. decreased price of money) into thinking that chaining yourself to crushing debt, one location, and a constant maintenance burden makes you really smart by definition.

First off, I don't live in the states and the banks in Canada have much higher standards of regulation on lending. No sub prime lending, no 0 down loans, no ARM's, no hudge foreclosure mess and no way will anyone get a mortgage without stated income. Credit cards typically offer 19.8% and maybe 10% if you have stellar credit. As a result, not many Canadians carry large credit card balances. In Canada, jack asses who don't pay their bills typically don't get loans. Canadian banking is apples and oranges as to what's happening down south and is why housing in Canada dodged a bullet. Thats not to say people aren't feeling it up here because the entire global economy is in the toilet, but the market I'm in is about as resiliant as you can get and has remained flat over the last year. You really have no idea what you're talking about as far as housing in Canada goes, so please save me any google inspired lecture.

Secondly, there will always be entry level stock of housing whether its a crappy little fixer upper house, an aging condo or even a mobile home. This stuff doesn't happen in a vaccume and there will always be a new crop of homeowners whether its immigrants, young people or fence sitters who take the plunge. The people who make it work are the ones willing to take a risk, be creative and put in a little elbow grease.

The bottom line my friend is that people who sit on the sidelines are never going to get into the game. I don't claim to be "really smart" and I'm probably not according to your definition, but I do know how to make money in RE. Its pretty much a full time job for me, I study it everyday and I love it.

[woodstocksez]

Secondly, there will always be entry level stock of housing whether its a crappy little fixer upper house, an aging condo or even a mobile home. This stuff doesn't happen in a vaccume and there will always be a new crop of homeowners whether its immigrants, young people or fence sitters who take the plunge. The people who make it work are the ones willing to take a risk, be creative and put in a little elbow grease.

But that doesn't provide any justification for your contention that house price movements need not be expected to be related to income movements. The top end of the market may be driven mostly or significantly by other factors, but most of the housing market isn't populated by people paying cash (or anything close) for their house. And most of those people are paying their mortgage with the money they earn.

The bottom line my friend is that people who sit on the sidelines are never going to get into the game. I don't claim to be "really smart" and I'm probably not according to your definition, but I do know how to make money in RE. Its pretty much a full time job for me, I study it everyday and I love it.

By definition, those who sit on the sidelines are never going to get into the game.

The sidelines has been the right place to be for the past few years in many markets in the U.S. It may still be the right place to be in some in the near future.

[powder11]

But that doesn't provide any justification for your contention that house price movements need not be expected to be related to income movements. The top end of the market may be driven mostly or significantly by other factors, but most of the housing market isn't populated by people paying cash (or anything close) for their house. And most of those people are paying their mortgage with the money they earn.

ok, I'll bite. You buy a beat to shit starter condo for 150k in a decent neighborhood. You can easily afford the payment. You drop some money on paint, new flooring and kitchen/bath upgrades and live in the place for a coupe of years. When you sellm you turn the place around for 20k profit or so. You take that money and reinvest into something more expensive because you made some income. Keep doing that over time and you will be making an income from your property, so yes your income will increase exponentially with each property and you will be paying roughly the same mortgage you started with, but end up with something worth a lot more. I'm not talking about flipping as you will have to live in the place and work on it in your spare time. Lots of people do it and do quite well; even in lousy markets.

By definition, those who sit on the sidelines are never going to get into the game.

The sidelines has been the right place to be for the past few years in many markets in the U.S. It may still be the right place to be in some in the near future.

You are right and that is why I sold my US property in 2005. The writing was on the wall and I can't imagine where I would be right now if I hadn't sold it and I'm sure the dumb ass I sold to got crushed. Nobody can time the market, but there are usually glaring indicators that things have topped out.

I think right now is a good time to get off the sidelines and jump in. I bought a fixer upper last year at the height of hysteria. Everyone said I was stupid. I spent the winter on an interior renovation and now I'm up almost 100k in equity because the seller panicked and dumped the place well below the assessed value. Interest rates are low, prices are low and its all going to wash out sooner than later. The hay days of quick flips are probably gone, but there is still money to be made in RE. The problem with some people is that they want a sure thing and don't have much appetite for risk, but not taking a risk is the biggest risk there is.

[woodstocksez]

ok, I'll bite. You buy a beat to shit starter condo for 150k in a decent neighborhood. You can easily afford the payment. You drop some money on paint, new flooring and kitchen/bath upgrades and live in the place for a coupe of years. When you sellm you turn the place around for 20k profit or so. You take that money and reinvest into something more expensive because you made some income. Keep doing that over time and you will be making an income from your property, so yes your income will increase exponentially with each property and you will be paying roughly the same mortgage you started with, but end up with something worth a lot more. I'm not talking about flipping as you will have to live in the place and work on it in your spare time. Lots of people do it and do quite well; even in lousy markets.

You assumed the housing price increase. You assumed paying roughly the same mortgage. Neither of those things need necessarily be true (or not), together or independently. Also, there's more to the economic calculus then price changes. There are transaction costs, tax benefits (or lack thereof), maintenance ....

Home ownership can certainly work out well - and in just the manner you described - and I'd bet it does for most people. Buying at or near a (temporally) local maximum is, in general, not desirable, though, and especially not at or near the peak of a bubble.

[powder11]

You assumed the housing price increase. You assumed paying roughly the same mortgage.

No, I didn't assume anything. I only buy a property under book value, so I make my money when I sign the mortgage. Sale price is determined by comparable sales, so that doesn't have to go up at all or could even drop and I still make money as long as I underpaid going in the door on a property that represents value (peices of shit will always be shit). My mortgage stays the same because I owe a lot less than what the property is actually worth. If I stay disciplined over time and keep my nose to the grindstone, the income from my day job can stay exactly the same and the value of the propertys I own is exponetially higher than what I started with relative to what I owe.

The people who pay assessed value or more and then expect prices to increase to make their profit are playing a fools game.

[mcsquared]

You do realize that every single person on "Flip this House" et al probably said the exact same thing, don't you? I mean they bought it "Under Market" right? How could they go wrong? I think the entire concept of "under market" is a fallacy. And I have given up on trying to quantify it. Isn't market price determined by what a buyer and seller agree it is?

[woodstocksez]

No, I didn't assume anything. I only buy a property under book value, so I make my money when I sign the mortgage. Sale price is determined by comparable sales, so that doesn't have to go up at all or could even drop and I still make money as long as I underpaid going in the door on a property that represents value (peices of shit will always be shit). My mortgage stays the same because I owe a lot less than what the property is actually worth. If I stay disciplined over time and keep my nose to the grindstone, the income from my day job can stay exactly the same and the value of the propertys I own is exponetially higher than what I started with relative to what I owe.

The people who pay assessed value or more and then expect prices to increase to make their profit are playing a fools game.

You assumed both of those things.

For example, whether your mortgage stays the same is not necessarily related to whether you owe a lot less than a property is worth (or any other parameter). If I buy a first house for $250K and finance $200K, then buy a move-up home for $500K and finance $300K, I owe a lot less on the second house than it's worth and a lot more than I owed on the first house.

What is "book value" for a house? Assessed value may or may not be market value. Basically, you're saying that you always buy homes for less than they're worth (and, more ridiculously than that, enough less than what they're worth so that you will always sell for a profit - accounting for transaction costs, I assume - no matter what happens to the market value of the home). Congratulations on being a seer. I guess your stock market advice is buy low, sell high. Sounds like a winning strategy.

Aside from all of that, you don't constitute the entire housing market and that's what the discussion concerns. Even if you can do what you say you're doing, that can't be done by all homeowners in aggregate.

[powder11]

You do realize that every single person on "Flip this House" et al probably said the exact same thing, don't you? I mean they bought it "Under Market" right? How could they go wrong? I think the entire concept of "under market" is a fallacy. And I have given up on trying to quantify it. Isn't market price determined by what a buyer and seller agree it is?

I'm not flipping anything. I own a couple of income properties and plan on buying more. I bought my first income property for well under value because it was caught up in a divorce and under court order to sell. I bought another for less than market value last fall by combing the listings for undervalued homes in nice neighborhoods. I spent most of my free time searching. When I found what I wanted, I persistantly beat the shit out of the seller on price. I made a list of every single deficiency I could think of and kept beating it like a drum. Some of it was real and some of it was perceived, but over time I think I actually had the selling agent believing me. I also didn't care if I got the place or not and let them know I was out there looking. It's a game. Eventually the seller panicked because the news was full of dooms day outlooks and took my offer, which was significantly lower than all the others, because I didn't have any contingencies written in for home inspection, financing or title search. I did my homework and knew exactly what I was buying. My purchase was over $100k under all the comparable sales which have remained flat since, so when I went to the bank they were fucking drooling because I basically had $100k equity walking in the door.

It actually takes a lot of work to find these places, so your lack of success is probably in direct correlation to the amount of time you spend looking around. Like I said, its pretty much a full time gig for me and I really enjoy it.

[powder11]

Even if you can do what you say you're doing, that can't be done by all homeowners in aggregate.

I don't have to say anything. I've got two titles that say I own over $2 million worth of RE in Whistler with @ 40% ownership equity and a bunch of ski bums paying the majority of my mortgage. My expenses every month are about $1800 all in.

[woodstocksez]

I don't have to say anything. I've got two titles that say I own over $2 million worth of RE in Whistler with @ 40% ownership equity and a bunch of ski bums paying the majority of my mortgage. My expenses every month are about $1800 all in.

Obviously I can't say whether some, none or all of that's true. Doesn't tell me anything about whether it's turning out well or not for you, now or in the future. If I understand correctly what you mean by your numbers, though, you've financed at least $1.2M (owner equity of 40% of $2M is $800K), so I hope it's going - and goes - well.

And you're apparently still missing the point that this is not about your specific real estate transactions.

[meatdrink9]

I sent in an offer for a new place over the weekend. The place had 4 offers in under 24 hours. I just sent in the multiple offer form and raised my offer. We'll see if I get it. I'd be buying and fixing like crazy if it weren't for the 4 mortgage rule. Instead I've been doing more artwork/design and having a blast, but not making the money I would/could be if I could still leverage money the way I had been. I was fixing and holding roughly 6 homes a year for the last two years, but now since I have to play with cash I can maybe do 2 a year. That hurts the banks trying to sell the homes. It hurts the community where I bring the homes back to life. There are some dumb rules out there.

FYI, my broker (who represents several banks with REOs) told me a couple of weeks ago that Fannie is holding over 450 houses just in Salt Lake, Davis and Weber county off the MLS as they don't want to flood the market. My broker met with the locksmith who does all the Fannie re-keys (guy has been swamped).

[Spats]

I'm not flipping anything. I own a couple of income properties and plan on buying more.

That's the important part right there, not all the other junk you're going on about:

CASH FLOW
CASH FLOW
CASH FLOW

If you can make a property generate cash each month -- including all the expenses people forget about like property tax (often higher on rentals), deferred maintenance (1.5-2% of house value each year), grounds upkeep, etc. -- then any appreciation in value is simply free money.

Since borrowing money is the only way for private citizens to generate leverage, people who understand cash flow can leverage up and make a good chunk of income.

However, leverage does not come without risk -- and it's not as simple as "always buy, property values always go up." If a property does not generate cash, you're simply depending on someone even stupider than you to come along and buy it. People have made money this way, but many have lost money too.

[mcsquared]

I'm not flipping anything. I own a couple of income properties and plan on buying more. I bought my first income property for well under value because it was caught up in a divorce and under court order to sell. I bought another for less than market value last fall by combing the listings for undervalued homes in nice neighborhoods. I spent most of my free time searching. When I found what I wanted, I persistantly beat the shit out of the seller on price. I made a list of every single deficiency I could think of and kept beating it like a drum. Some of it was real and some of it was perceived, but over time I think I actually had the selling agent believing me. I also didn't care if I got the place or not and let them know I was out there looking. It's a game. Eventually the seller panicked because the news was full of dooms day outlooks and took my offer, which was significantly lower than all the others, because I didn't have any contingencies written in for home inspection, financing or title search. I did my homework and knew exactly what I was buying. My purchase was over $100k under all the comparable sales which have remained flat since, so when I went to the bank they were fucking drooling because I basically had $100k equity walking in the door.

It actually takes a lot of work to find these places, so your lack of success is probably in direct correlation to the amount of time you spend looking around. Like I said, its pretty much a full time gig for me and I really enjoy it.

Dude, relax. No need to go swinging your dick around trying to prove something. I am convinced that you are a brilliant negotiator. Just trying to offer my perspective. Real estate isn't my full time gig but I have done ok. I have made easy money, lost difficult money and everything in between over the years. Just trying to make the point that at the end of the day after dozens of closings I have given up on chasing the mythical beast of "below market" because from my philosophical standpoint, it doesn't exist.

[woodstocksez]

If you can make a property generate cash each month -- including all the expenses people forget about like property tax (often higher on rentals), deferred maintenance (1.5-2% of house value each year), grounds upkeep, etc. -- then any appreciation in value is simply free money.

That positive cash flow and appreciation may not be so great, depending on the opportunity cost associated with any owner equity.

[powder11]

And you're apparently still missing the point that this is not about your specific real estate transactions.

obviously I am a drop in the bucket, but I was responding to an argument that the only way for people to make money in RE is through rising prices, which is not true.

Dude, relax. No need to go swinging your dick around trying to prove something. I am convinced that you are a brilliant negotiator. Just trying to offer my perspective. Real estate isn't my full time gig but I have done ok. I have made easy money, lost difficult money and everything in between over the years. Just trying to make the point that at the end of the day after dozens of closings I have given up on chasing the mythical beast of "below market" because from my philosophical standpoint, it doesn't exist.

I know I come across like a douche, but I'm ok with that. I hear what you're saying about market price being determined by what something sells for, but the sales comp data is how most people agree to a price so, IMO, coming in below those numbers is crucial to making money in the long run.

That positive cash flow and appreciation may not be so great, depending on the opportunity cost associated with any owner equity.

you sound like my wife going on about all the vacations we don't take At the end of the day, it's all speculation, so who knows where we'll all be in the future. A meteor could hit my truck while I'm driving down the road later today, so my philosophy is to just go for it and not worry about all the possible outcomes because most of its out of my control anyway.

Like you said, its not about me and what I'm doing that matters. There's a whole pile of people underwater these days who are in big trouble and probably won't ever recover from it financially. I sleep well at night knowing if it all goes to shit, I did what I thought was right and gave it my all.

[mock vomit]

...I hear what you're saying about market price being determined by what something sells for, but the sales comp data is how most people agree to a price so, IMO, coming in below those numbers is crucial to making money in the long run...

Actually, it's the still for sale competition that most people use to compare and decide what price is "fair"... Of course some buyers are well informed, others not so much.

As far as the whole argument about "buying below market" or whatever; I'd say the best method to use to regularly get a REAL "deal", is to find a home with a better to great location but that has some fixable negatives holding it back from getting the best price possible, then once you own it... you fix those negatives for maximum return with minimum investment. Not really "buying below market", but IMHO the one true method to a "deal" in any type of market.

-----------------------------

Edit: Wanted to point out that in the above statement... the term "better to great location" is probably 100% dependent on the price range being discussed. A great location for a home with a value around $100K will be a sucky location for a home around $500K which will be a sucky location for a home around $1 million...

It also can vary by the type of property and area. Said another way... a "better to great location" is one without many negatives, where neighboring homes are similar or more expensive, and the "type" of home fits with the characteristics of the reasons people buy in this area in the first place.

This last part in even other words, people are less likely to want a bland 1950's ranch in an area of charming 1920's old world character homes on tight lots... if they'll accept a bland house, they might as well look a few minutes further out and find it on a bigger suburban lot. And who wants a long commute way out into the outer exurbs to buy a home built right alongside a busy highway... they want the peace and serenity of the "country", a busy highway next door they can get close in with a short commute.

[Benny Profane]

Robert Shiller: "echo" bubble possible in some markets.



http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/278952/%22Another-Bubble%22-in-Housing-It-Could-Happen-Says-Yale's-Robert-Shiller?tickers=UMM,DMM,XHB,DHI,KBH,LEN,PHM

This guy has turned into a real schill (heh heh) for his little futures trading thing he just established. Everytime I hear him on the tube or radio, which is, like every month, he just stops and advertises this new thing of his to make himself rich. I wish there was somebody else we could go to for some sort of measure of what's happening in prices, but, that seems to be it. Well, those guys and the National Board of realtors. Yup, you can trust them for the truth.

I understand what he's saying about another bubble. Some say that the stock market is just being bubbled up by all this money (China, too), and, god knows what oil will do once a little demand comes back.

[cramer]

Bay Area home sales jump to 3-year high

http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_12851321
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...PVCF.DTL&tsp=1

[grrrr]

Meanwhile US Foreclosures Continue Shattering Records

[Benny Profane]

WSJ
JULY 16, 2009, 9:44 AM ET

Don’t Put Too Much Stock (Yet) in Rising Median Home Prices


By Nick Timiraos

Median home prices are beginning to rise in some markets, so housing has reached a bottom, right? Not so fast.

Southern California saw its median home sales price jump in June by 6.4% from the previous month to $265,000. That’s the largest gain since July 2007, and only the second since a meager 0.8% gain in May from April, according to MDA Dataquick, a real-estate information service.

But median home sales prices have ceased to be a good measure for whether home prices are actually rising. That’s because as the housing pain has reached the upper end of the market, it’s beginning to drag down prices of more expensive homes to the point where there are more sales. Those sales are fueling a rise in median prices.

The median home sales price shows the mid-point for home prices—half of all sales were above $265,000 in Southern California last month, and half were below. The median price is nearly half of what it was in 2007, when it hit a peak of $505,000. Over the past year, median prices tumbled in many markets as the mix of homes included a disproportionately high number of foreclosures that sold at deep discounts.

Rather than mark a bottom in housing, a rising median price shows how the mix of homes that are selling is changing, with more expensive homes entering the pool of total sales. “The recession and problem mortgages are fueling more high-end distress, hence more high-end ‘bargains,’” says John Walsh, Dataquick’s president. “What’s missing, still, is a wide-open financing spigot for the would-be buyers of these more expensive homes.”

Southern California isn’t alone in seeing a rise in median sales prices. An analysis of 390 metro areas by John Burns Real Estate Consulting found that 39% of markets are now reporting a month-over-month increase in the median price, up from 22% of all markets two months ago. Again, it doesn’t mean there’s any real price appreciation happening: “What is really happening is that people are now comparing the price on a 3-bedroom home in a typical neighborhood to the price on a 3-bedroom home in a poor neighborhood - because that’s what was selling several months ago,” says their report.

The tumble at the high-end of the market means that not only will we see more increases in median prices, but we’re also likely to see further declines in the S&P/Case-Shiller home price index, as we noted last month. Case-Shiller is value-weighted, which means that repeat transactions on expensive homes have an outsized impact.

[Missing Sock]

Benny,

Did you buy anything yet or are you still just armchairing?

[mock vomit]

Benny,

Did you buy anything yet or are you still just armchairing?

I'll let him answer this for himself... BUT I will say, if you go back and reread this thread from the very beginning all the way thru, it becomes crystal clear that "as Benny goes, so goes the real estate market"...

[Benny Profane]

.....werd.

That's a pretty dumb question, if you think about it. Besides, I live in one of the most expensive markets in the country, and, as they say above, that is just now beginning to deflate.

[cramer]

WSJ
JULY 16, 2009, 9:44 AM ET

Don’t Put Too Much Stock (Yet) in Rising Median Home Prices


By Nick Timiraos

Median home prices are beginning to rise in some markets, so housing has reached a bottom, right? Not so fast.

Southern California saw its median home sales price jump in June by 6.4% from the previous month to $265,000. That’s the largest gain since July 2007, and only the second since a meager 0.8% gain in May from April, according to MDA Dataquick, a real-estate information service.

But median home sales prices have ceased to be a good measure for whether home prices are actually rising. That’s because as the housing pain has reached the upper end of the market, it’s beginning to drag down prices of more expensive homes to the point where there are more sales. Those sales are fueling a rise in median prices.

The median home sales price shows the mid-point for home prices—half of all sales were above $265,000 in Southern California last month, and half were below. The median price is nearly half of what it was in 2007, when it hit a peak of $505,000. Over the past year, median prices tumbled in many markets as the mix of homes included a disproportionately high number of foreclosures that sold at deep discounts.

Rather than mark a bottom in housing, a rising median price shows how the mix of homes that are selling is changing, with more expensive homes entering the pool of total sales. “The recession and problem mortgages are fueling more high-end distress, hence more high-end ‘bargains,’” says John Walsh, Dataquick’s president. “What’s missing, still, is a wide-open financing spigot for the would-be buyers of these more expensive homes.”

Southern California isn’t alone in seeing a rise in median sales prices. An analysis of 390 metro areas by John Burns Real Estate Consulting found that 39% of markets are now reporting a month-over-month increase in the median price, up from 22% of all markets two months ago. Again, it doesn’t mean there’s any real price appreciation happening: “What is really happening is that people are now comparing the price on a 3-bedroom home in a typical neighborhood to the price on a 3-bedroom home in a poor neighborhood - because that’s what was selling several months ago,” says their report.

The tumble at the high-end of the market means that not only will we see more increases in median prices, but we’re also likely to see further declines in the S&P/Case-Shiller home price index, as we noted last month. Case-Shiller is value-weighted, which means that repeat transactions on expensive homes have an outsized impact.
WSJ

So i did a search on walnut creek, orinda, lafayette, plesant hill, black hawk and san ramon. They totalled all together 500 sold houses the last 3 months. Pittsburg, antioch and oakley had over 1600 sold in the same timeframe. So im going to have to call BS on that theory. This search is in MLS, which doesnt lie. So im curious to where they are getting there numbers? Maybe in LA its like that, but out in the east bay its not. The houses that are selling are the affordable ones and they are selling alot of them.