• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Housing Bubble Bursting?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Silly letter

The notion that the FED is the chicken that hatched the egg is silly.

The FED has become irrelevant to closed nationalized energy components.

A 1% dip in energy production makes the FED a distant memory over the control of greenback strength.

Bernanke is probably starting to feel like a lot of what experienced appraisers feel - all the time -

"SECOND GUESSED"
 
Randolph Kinney said:
THE CRUX OF THE DEBATE IS HOUSE PRICES

If the inflated prices are justified by economic fundamentals and sustainable, then the 82 percent increase in mortgage debt since 2000 will probably turn out to be innocuous and the risks to the economy minimal. If, on the other hand, prices are out of whack, painful adjustments lie ahead.

Roughly a quarter of the jobs created since the 2001 recession have been in construction, real estate, and mortgage finance. Even more important, consumers have withdrawn $2.5 trillion in equity from their homes during this time, spending as much as half of it and thus making a huge contribution to the growth the U.S. economy has enjoyed in recent years (consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of GDP).

For the past five years, Americans have spent more than they have earned--last year, the net borrowing amounted to 3.7 percent of GDP, or over $500 billion. The high level of spending compared with disposable income is also in uncharted territory.

But consumers cannot keep spending more than they make. Eventually, home prices will flatten, the flood of "cash out" refinancings will become a trickle, and consumer spending will slow, as will job creation in housing-related industries.

Yet the concerns about unsustainable growth in consumer debt and home prices are dismissed.

A recent study by First American Corp. shows that many of the borrowers who have taken advantage of the lowest teaser rates and are going to experience the greatest payment increases have little or even negative equity in their homes. Fully 22 percent of the borrowers who borrowed at initial rates of 2.5 percent or less during the past two years have negative equity in their homes, and 40 percent have less than 10 percent equity. The study also finds that a third of people who took out adjustable rate mortgages last year have negative equity and 52 percent have less than 10 percent equity. How is this possible? One reason is that 43 percent of first-time home buyers paid no down payment last year.

If home prices fall modestly, millions of homeowners will see their equity wiped out. Many of those with the least amount of equity, as we've already shown, are going to face significant increases in their monthly payments.

So what has been a virtuous but unsustainable cycle for the economy--higher home prices, more borrowing against home equity, higher spending, increased job creation, even higher home prices--could easily reverse and become a vicious cycle--higher monthly payments, declining home prices, less spending, job losses, foreclosures, even lower home prices.

This pretty well sums it up from a macro, nationwide perspective. And Rober's post #1032 provides an almost perfect counterpoint. Roger, I think that what George is mainly saying is that your point #1 doesn't play out too well in his market, because there are not many 80-20's or very many with any equity at all. If that is true, then in such a scenario, they are not really homeowners, but rather renting from the bank. The rest of your points would therefore collapse if they decided to walk enmasse. Nevertheless, your statement is well said, and nationwide, I think the most likely scenario to play out.
 
The argument Roger poses of 80-20 does not support stable housing prices. If it did, the run-up in home prices to the extent that it has, should not have happened. It was at the margin, where 100% financing with less creditworthy borrowers, speculation and second home buying, that made this difference in home price appreciation over and far above inflation. It offers little protection for any collapse at the margin.

This fact of at the margin buying can be seen in the rate of rise of real rents versus real home prices. If house sale prices were pushed up by fundamentals in the housing market, it would be expected that rents and house sale prices would rise together. (see chart below) This divergence is quite visible in many local markets. When such divergences occurred in the past, they were usually followed by sharp declines in house sale prices.

One other troubling aspect of the housing boom (bubble) has been the extraordinary rate of housing construction. The pace of housing construction over the last 3 years is more than 40 percent higher than the average construction rate in the 17 years prior to the run-up in house prices. This construction boom is occurring as population growth is slowing and the huge baby boom cohort is reaching ages at which the portion of income devoted to housing typically declines sharply. It is also worth noting that virtually no economists projected this surge in construction prior to its occurrence.

There is a wealth effect associated with housing wealth, which leads people to consume more and save less. The sharp run-up in house sale prices over the last 8 years has pushed the savings rate into negative territory, even as most baby boomers are in their peak savings years. If house prices continue to out pace inflation, then the savings rate will decline still further, leaving the vast majority of baby boomers with little wealth outside of their home.

The bursting of the stock market bubble in 2000 threw the economy into recession, wiping out nearly all of the retirement savings of ten's of millions of workers. Pension plans have yet to recover from that event and it was made worse by the lowest interest rates in 50 years.
 
Last edited:
My utility bill this month was $333.00

I live in house that is 1,000 sf. Its newly inflated marekt value is now about $100,000. Next year our taxes will go from $5.00 per year to about $400.00

Food, gas, corrupted municipal utility companies, county real estate taxes, gas prices, food prices, health care costs and hot dog prices keep going through the roof .......

what planet are you people on?
 
Randolph comments:
The argument Roger poses of 80-20 does not support stable housing prices. If it did, the run-up in home prices to the extent that it has, should not have happened.


Roger's actual quote:
Having a low equity position among a significant proportion of homeowners has a price stabilizing aspect built right in to it! If they can't afford to sell, they will either not move or rent to bubbleheads...

The house price stabilizing aspect I am talking about acts to buffer down side movements. I made no claim as to up side protection.:shrug:
 
rogerwatland said:
Randolph comments:


Roger's actual quote:

The house price stabilizing aspect I am talking about acts to buffer down side movements. I made no claim as to up side protection.:shrug:
Maybe I misunderstood your point about 80-20. If the buyers were all 80-20 or a very high percentage were 80-20, I doubt there would be the house price appreciation that has happen. It is the marginal buyer that I am speaking to and it is the cause of the higher than inflation house price increases.

I can accept home ownership as a stabilizing affect, regardless of the equity. However, I disagree with your statement:

Quote Roger:
2nd Counter Argument: Having a low equity position among a significant proportion of homeowners has a price stabilizing aspect built right in to it! If they can't afford to sell, they either won't move or will rent to bubbleheads ...
The people at the margin will not have a stabilizing affect when they are faced with interest rate resets or they can no longer keep up their mortgage payments, for whatever reasons. I doubt that any marginal home owner, who cannot pay his mortgage, can rent his house out for the mortgage payment.
 
Here is some more detail: An owner with zero equity has less pricing flexibility than an owner with, say, 10-20% equity. Therefore, it is less likely that they will voluntarily put their home on the market, since they couldn't cover fees with equity.

Also, they would have to bring cash to closing if they sold for less. That will tend to put a restraint on market supply compared to what it otherwise might have become, which will help price stability on the down side. Some zero equity owners that have to move will rent and take a hit.

I realize that areas of CA and FL, etc have wildly high GRM's and properties may not cash flow except with substantial equity. But credit rating and avoiding foreclosure will be worth the hit to many that must move and can't bring sufficient cash to closing.

Another point: Arranging short sales is becoming a growth industry:)
Equity or not, it will rain tears if families lose jobs in masse or have a medical set back, etc....or for you CA guys, the meth lab explodes:rof: .
 
Roger, you whole premise is one of voluntary sales. Your point being, unless there is something in it for seller, he will not sell, voluntarily. That is a DUH!

Short sales are a growth industry here in California. In fact, the IRS is one of the beneficiaries. The difference owed on the loan versus what was recovered from the short sale is reported to the IRS. Debt relief will be more than likely treated as income with taxes owed by the home owner doing the short sale.

So Roger, do you suppose the people who can't make their mortgage payments with no equity in their home are going to be new buyers in the same home market? :rof:
 
So Roger, do you suppose the people who can't make their mortgage payments with no equity in their home are going to be new buyers in the same home market?

No, they will probably compete with the bubbleheads for rentals or possibly downsize and quickly buy again in the area where they intend to relocate, if they didn't short sale. However, unless you see massive unemployment, the bulk of the 80-20 crowd will have jobs and be getting along.

BTW, don't you think short sales helps the market avoid sales at distressed prices?

Regarding my comments about what is likely to happen in the market: Yes, I am talking about voluntary actions under the then current circumstances. Additionally, I am comparing that future "then" with the periods "before" 80-15-5 and 80-20 financing flourished. Post 2001 for the bulk of 80-20 action.

I guess the only market activity you were considering "market activity" was distressed sales?
 
Last edited:
Roger, you whole premise is one of voluntary sales. Your point being, unless there is something in it for seller, he will not sell, voluntarily. That is a DUH!

I brushed over this comment. Well, gee then, DUH it is! My point is the lack of equity in a significantly larger proportion of the market may act as a break on supply, at least on the margins. And this should dampen downward movements compared to previous scenarios where far more owners have equity. It is a market to market observation. DUH observations still count.

DUH, what's next?:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top