• 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.
Yes, Roger, California is distorting the national numbers because it is that large representing total loans, particularly jumbo loans, subprime loans, neg am loans, etc.

Recent data points to an outbound migration of population that exceeds inbound migration for San Diego county. These may be mainly renters or they could be victims of short sales and foreclosures.

Two of my clients (mortgage brokers) are themselves victims of ARM resets and both have gone the short sale route. One is moving out because his business has dried up. Last year, he said he was doing 15 deals a month. The only deal he had for March was killed with tightening the LTV to 95%. And on certain loan products, credit scores were raised to 680 minimum. The credit crunch is real here for people who don't have $25,000 to put down when buying an entry level home.

As George Hatch points out for renting a house versus buying a house, it strictly favors renting on a cash flow basis in SD county.

I believe the market conditions and delinquent mortgages here are going to get substantially worse going forward.

The individual variations can be strange. A real estate agent I had worked with in the past, relocated to Fresno, CA a few months ago. A LO I played tennis with yesterday has 13 loans closing in March.:shrug:
 
S.D. headed down road to 'superstar' city status?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070311/news_1b11dean.html

Interesting article on what happens when real estate becomes so expensive that only the wealthy can afford to own it.

Even after a year's worth of sluggishness and decline in the local real estate market, the high home prices in San Diego County still keep out people like the walls around a gated community.

More people are leaving San Diego than are coming in from other states. Companies avoid moving here because they can't find homes for their executives. And college grads are looking outside the county to find a place to live.

To a trio of Ivy League economists, this is the future for San Diego.

Like a number of other coastal urban areas, they say, San Diego is evolving into a “superstar city” – a haven for the ultra-rich that squeezes out the lower and middle classes and even the merely well-to-do.

The economists say two main ingredients make a superstar city.

First, there has to be a growing number of rich people in the city.

Second, there must be physical or regulatory barriers to home building.

Can an area the size of San Diego survive if it attracts only rich people?

“Metropolitan areas can thrive with a lot less lower-income households,” economist Gyourko said. “The question is, how far can you go?”
 
The individual variations can be strange. A real estate agent I had worked with in the past, relocated to Fresno, CA a few months ago. A LO I played tennis with yesterday has 13 loans closing in March.:shrug:
Your real estate agent buddy going to Fresno, CA is going to have lots of potential work. Fresno ranks right up there for MSAs with high subprime mortgage concentrations, according to a recent news article, like 16.6% of all mortgages as of the end of December 2006.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1319455720070314
 
Randolph,

From the comments made by the Pimco guy-

"The median home price for existing homes was down 8.5 percent in January from a peak of $230,000 in July, according to the National Association of Realtors. "

No it was not and we all should know that by now- it has been posted and discussed any number of time. The national median was down 3.1% from the chart published by NAR.

If he cannot even get that right why bother listending to him?

Brad
 
George,

Agreed that rental rates will sometimes point the way to values- but this has not been in sync for a long time. In 2003 an LA economist (forget the university) said the market had to soon crumble because rents did not keep up with prices.

He was wrong.

Randolph,

Also agree that in SD county it makes more sense to rent. In fact a friend of mine sold his home and is renting as he correctly predicted th market top. Now the questin is- will he predict the market bottom? If not he may leave some money on the table when he buys again- but no matter.

George again,

We are leaving some stuff out of the equation. Some rentals are where they are because of already existing cost and mortgages. I have a home that will soon be rented out for $1650 and my mortgage, an I/O plus taxes is about $1000. And let's not forget about depreication. We are allowed to depreciate the investments properties if we self-manage over 29.5 years. That is going to shield about $10K in income, and not all of that by a long shot are real costs associated with the actual physical deterioration. So thefre are tax benefits as well.

But you sure nail this if/when we talk about speculators. One could not afford to do that now. Still rents are increasing and have been doing so for a while now. Will they catch up? Not likely anytime soon. But these imbalances look to be correcting themselves in some- perhaps many- markets.

Brad
 
Randolph,

From the comments made by the Pimco guy-

"The median home price for existing homes was down 8.5 percent in January from a peak of $230,000 in July, according to the National Association of Realtors. "

No it was not and we all should know that by now- it has been posted and discussed any number of time. The national median was down 3.1% from the chart published by NAR.

If he cannot even get that right why bother listending to him?

Brad
Brad, I am looking at the NAR spread sheet on their web site for January 2007. For July 2006, it reads the median sales price of existing homes for the U.S. is $230,200. For January 2007, it reads $210,600.

http://www.realtor.org/Research.nsf/files/EHSreport.XLS/$FILE/EHSreport.XLS

Lets do the math. 210600/230200 = 0.9149 or looking at the percentage, that is 91.5% of the peak median sales price. Is that the 8.5% decline from the peak median sales price of existing homes as stated in the PIMCO article? I believe that is so, from NAR's own data, from their own web site.

The number you and NAR like to quote and flash into everyone's face is the 3.1% number, which represents the year over year month comparison.

My suggestion to everyone reading this thread is to ignore the spin by NAR and Brad and analyze the data for yourselves. A 3.1% decline reads better than a 8.5% decline and it minimizes the relationship of declining values. :new_smile-l:
 
CoreLogic predicts more foreclosures coming

According to a study by CoreLogic, the rise in monthly payments on ARM loans will result in just over one million foreclosures over the next six to seven years – assuming home prices stay where they are. If prices rise by 10%, the estimated number of foreclosures drops to just under 500,000; while if prices fall by 10% the number of foreclosures is expected to be near two million. Have a look at page A9 of today's WSJ for more ("Economy Can Withstand More Mortgage Foreclosures").

For more on housing…see the two articles on page C1 of the WSJ ("Believing In House of Cards Haunts Investors" and "Finance Sector Is a Precarious State of Affairs").
 
According to a study by CoreLogic, the rise in monthly payments on ARM loans will result in just over one million foreclosures over the next six to seven years – assuming home prices stay where they are. If prices rise by 10%, the estimated number of foreclosures drops to just under 500,000; while if prices fall by 10% the number of foreclosures is expected to be near two million.

Geek that I can be....:blush:

I wonder if CoreLogic came up with those foreclosure estimates AFTER excluding short sales, or if they are assuming that there WON'T be short sales.

I also wonder when they come up with that "near" two million foreclosure number if prices fall by 10%, does that include those who bought with conventional 30-year loans who simply lose it because the price drop causes them to be upside down?
 
Randolph,

Sorry- early AM and missed his "peak" comment.

Here is Neil George's take on all ths sub-prime hype: (Yes, just like everything all of us post- it is spin):

"On to today’s issue:

Subprime isn’t necessarily a bad word—unless you keep tuning into the talking heads on television or reading all the incessant stories of agony and defeat from Wall Street.

Too many folks are getting edgy over credit conditions. The hyped-up stories of a few so-called subprime lenders going belly-up is only getting more folks needlessly worried, and they’re missing the real story of the markets.

Like everything else, the credit market--from banking to mortgages and even corporate bonds--isn’t a monolith. Rather, it’s a wide, varied collection of different participants.
Although it makes for a grabby scare story that’s good for those doom-and-gloomers, it’s not going to send the markets or the economy into the dumpster.

Instead, pay attention to the reality and not the hype and we’ll all make more money with biggie yield payers, rather than losing out by getting clutched up and holding too much cash.

It comes down to understanding the market and knowing that nothing is indexed when it comes to knowing whether one of our bonds or other investments is in trouble--or is actually in good shape in opposition to what the Street is saying about the industry or an index.

The key to knowing the market is to ignore the market and instead, focus on the fundamentals of what you’re investing in.
The market is focused on the biggie indexes, which usually are made up of large companies that have their own problems and usually shouldn’t even be followed--let alone invested in--anyway.

Just focus on the real meat of the matter. In the credit markets, that means watch for default rates. For the past year, despite the hype to the contrary, default rates for lower-grade credit issuers in the so-called dodgy junk market--including edgy mortgage and consumer lenders--has maintained one of the lowest levels in decades at a mere 1.8 percent.

While a few lenders have run into trouble, most are doing their job of managing credit and their balance sheet risks.

This is across the board in all industries. So while the Wall Street guys are saying avoid risk, behind the scenes, their pals in the dealing rooms are backing up the trucks and buying what they’re telling investors to avoid.

This is classic Wall Street. Its brokers tell us to buy what they want to sell--remember the dot-com stuff--while they tell us to sell what they want for themselves, which now means lower credit-rated stuff with biggie yields and sustained positive performance.

Before you get clutched up on whether the mortgage, consumer lending or corporate markets are in deep doo-doo, take a deep breath and simply look at what we’ve been buying and owning--without the hype--and go through the reality of the numbers. This cuts across the industries and market segments of our bond and other holdings.

At the same time, there’s a good question out there: Are we pricing in enough risk premium in the yields of our bonds and other securities?

Lesser credit-graded stuff has been working for a while now, and it’s what I’ve been writing about in By George as well as Personal Finance, Inner Circle and Bond Desk.

Meanwhile, everyone from the talking heads to the pop financial papers have been asking, “Is this so-called junk not priced high enough in yield to justify our risk?”

For us, the real question is this: Is the supposed risk-free US Treasury market too cheap relative to its supposed sacrosanct credit?

That’s the query that hasn’t gotten enough attention--if any at all--in the markets or the pop press. To answer it, it really comes down to the fact that the Treasury market is increasingly becoming a no-man’s zone for heavy money.

Where’s the action in Treasuries? Folks used to get all hot and bothered trading T-bonds and notes and speculating on all the comings and goings in this market. But with more and more chunks of the market easily fully priced, there are less and less bits that have any under- or overpriced values.

Meanwhile, the rest of the bond market has continued to gain some further attention, because there’s more room for traders and investors to work with in market pricing inefficiencies.

The pricing of Treasuries isn’t getting the action needed to drive yields lower to where they should be, given all of the heavy money in the overall bond market. Instead, that heavy money is going where it can cash in on opportunities in the markets and not just grab yields.

Just because lower credit-rated stuff is closing in on Treasury yields, it doesn’t spell doom for the market as being overpriced. Instead, we should continue to see even tighter spreads on good quality issues that are handpicked by the astute trader and investor with less regard to what S&P, Moody’s and/or Fitch’s has bestowed on them for a fee by making calls on their own.

On mortgages, note that the subprime issue is really just about a handful of companies that didn’t do their jobs correctly in the first place when lending or buying loans--and now they’re paying the price for it.

Many of these companies have a nasty track record of mishaps on a regular basis, including H&R Block, Washington Mutual and even Countrywide. So don’t just say that it’s an industry or economic thing; it really comes down to a company and management thing.

Remember that out of the $17 trillion or so worth of current US housing stock, at worst, we’re looking at loan workouts of maybe $1 million. On the mortgage side, with some nearly $9 trillion in mortgages, again perhaps some $200 billion or so will have some issues.

We’re talking about some pretty meager numbers in looking at the overall mortgage and housing market.

On the mortgage company front, while others fret over subprime stuff, we’ll continue to buy the best, which are being brushed with the perils of a few bad apples, without even having to look at subprime lending.

This includes my favorite mortgage company out in Santa Fe, NM. The company’s common stock has its great, long-proven portfolio yielding more than 10 percent. On the preferred front, it has a great 8 percent preferred with less volatility than the common stock--perfect for those investors who aren’t up to the thrills of the markets.

On the bond side, this company again has a great 8 percent issue due in 2013, priced to yield just a couple of basis shy of 8 percent. All are rated by the biggie Wall Street guys in the lower-B range.

And this mortgage company doesn’t get into subprime."

Brad
 
Wall Street reassures on subprime, but there are skeptics

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/wall-street-reassures-subprime-there/story.aspx?guid=%7B148EFF07%2D01C5%2D4C2B%2DA17E%2DC040F23FBF81%7D

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. subprime mortgage crisis hasn't spread to other fixed-income markets, investors still crave mortgage-backed securities because loan standards have tightened, and - why worry anyway? - since subprime loans are a mere cog in investment banks' profit machine.


These messages are brought to you by Wall Street, which has a thriving business packaging and repackaging U.S. residential mortgages into securities sold to investors.
 
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