• 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.
I am not sure whether you are serious or joking but it seems more joking to blame the video gaming by workers for lack of productivity

It might have been before your time. I am only partly joking. My point is that the things we talk about aren't necessarily the most significant factors, just because they are relatively easy to identify and are in vogue.

BTW, Milton F seriously called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve system all during his active academic career. His popularity probably peaked among academics that were disenchanted (to say the least) with established economic orthodoxy in the '60's and became borderline mainstream in the '70's and '80's, though still a minority view.

I watched as many Galbraith vs Friedman debates as possible. Give me popcorn and one of those debates any day:rof:
 
Techno hubris smart core has blind spot to "outsider's" out core whose covering has come off with the fire of inflation.
 
Outsider inflation fire will be put out by new immigration bill that will allow 66 million new immigrants into this country ......

smart core numbers will be protected and keep dollar strong enough to stay in the fight to contain china
 
The stock market is still declining and we are going to get the existing housing market tomorrow at 10:a.m Eastern Time. I am not very optimistic about it
 
Not like the housing unit disappears.

At the same time, the supply of rental properties has been constrained, as many former rental properties have been converted into condominiums, said Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wachovia Corp.
I find statements like this laughable. Just because a rental unit is converted to a condominium does not mean it disappears. Condo conversions neither add or subtract from the local housing stock. Most of the people buying them are either people who were renting (which reduces the number of people seeking rental housing too) or by investors who intend to rent out the unit (which also has no effect on the supply of rental housing). Converting to condo in this area simply means that the 200 unit apartment complex has 150 different landlords collecting rent instead of one. I see no upward pressure on rents in this area, in fact many good deals are available for renters of single family homes.

The supply of apartment complexes available for converters is constrained. It is to the point where a guy I know of is converting an old flea bag hotel west of Orlando to one bedroom condos. While local one bedroom condos go for under 100K he has a great marketing plan to sell his for $140K to $150K by offering 100% financing to everyone. He knows the appraisals will not be a problem because (written right into his marketing plan to show the bank) he will use another company owned under a different name to "buy three of the units for cash at $150K to create the comps." :rof: Wouldn't you love the job of prosecutor in that fraud case.
Talk about an easy job. :rof:
 
Last edited:
The inflation calculation anomaly is described in the article as if this will trick the policy wonks since (I guess it is assumed) that they are keeping their eye on nominal inflation calculations. I don't think so:)

The type of consumer behavior change that is dangerous and might lead to a runaway inflation is where consumers see pervasive and persistent price increases and rush to market and leverage themselves in order to buy stuff "before the prices increase."

Is anybody on the margin going to really run out and rent an extra place because they are pretty sure rents are going to increase? I don't think so:)

Therefore, this little happening does little to help me form a prediction of future inflation or rate increases.:shrug:

Greg: I'm not even gong to try and figure out Florida's condo/rental market. A customer of mine almost doubled his $$ on paper between contract and final construction on a Miami Condotel. His paper gain has probably reversed a bit by now, but it won't matter since he doesn't pay much attention to market once he commits to buy. He just sits on the properties.
 
An interview by businessweek online with two housing experts who have two different points of view in housing: John Talbott an author and maven in real estate, David Lereah a NAR economist. You can read both interviews if you wish and judge for yourself

http://yahoo.businessweek.com/inves...0522_866341.htm?chan=investing_investing+main

Talbott's take is: "We are in for a fairly rough ride in the housing market for the next five to seven years."
Talbott insists the crash he predicted is right around the corner, as housing markets show signs of cooling. In his latest book, he notes that national home values, adjusted for general inflation, increased almost 61% from 1981 to 2003. In the past three years, home prices have shot up another 35%.
BusinessWeek Online reporter Sonja Ryst recently spoke with Talbott about his bearish outlook for housing. Edited excerpts of their conversation follow.
What do you think is happening to the housing market right now?
The smart money is getting out. The inventory of homes for sale is increasing dramatically across the country. That's typically what happens before you see price declines.... The investors who are flipping homes for profit, like non-owner occupied condominiums, those are the people you would expect to sell first. You're already seeing that happening.
In San Diego, for example, the homebuilders themselves are getting out. I know a condominium developer in San Diego who had properties he was building, and he made offers for people to take them out of the market. He hadn't even completed the building yet, but he was selling the condominiums for ridiculously low prices like $190,000 if the buyer would just come in and finish the floors. He was minimizing his exposure for the downturn. In San Diego, condos are off around 30%— that's huge. Prices normally trade off 1%.
How much do you think prices will decline, and how long do you think it will take?
I think that it's a worldwide phenomenon, and in the 25 cities that have had price run-ups, which make up 40% of the market, we'll see corrections of 40% to 50% in real terms over the next six years. It has already started, and you'll see it happening in more cities in the May-June time frame.
How did housing prices get so high?
The banks have made a terrible mistake in how they calculate how much to lend. In the early 1980s, about a third of your income had to go to your mortgage and those worked out fine. Today, they've increased that limit to about 40% of your income, and they think those should work out fine, too. But the banks have actually been lending too aggressively.
We're seeing hints about the housing market all over the place. When and how do we know what's really happening to it?
Because of the cyclicality of the business, prices have been down in most places four months in a row. Most cities have seen slight declines in December, January, February, and March. What typically happens is when the weather warms up in spring, people want to move their children during the summer before school starts. The buyers start to come out and then prices start to shoot up in May and June. Those are the two key months. The question is what happens in May and June. Will there be a flood of for sale signs— people trying to get out at the peak? Or will buyers return to the market?
What happens to the U.S. economy if the downturn you predict really happens?
I think it will be a disaster. Not only will people in fields like banking be unemployed but consumers themselves will spend less. They're spending a lot now because they think their house is worth a million. When they find out it's only worth $400,000, they'll spend less. As foreclosures increase, the banks will get hurt and will pull back on lending. That can drive the country into a recession.
What role does the Federal Reserve play?
The Fed messed this up. They had a bad situation with the Internet bubble in 1999 and 2000, and to keep that from turning into a recession they lowered the federal funds rate down to 1% and held it there for four years. That created this real estate bubble.
Didn't you already say all this in 2003?
I wrote my first book in 2003 saying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were overleveraged and the market was too high, but I was careful in the book not to say it couldn't go higher. I wasn't trying to call the absolute peak in the market. But now with the Fed basically out of the picture and giving up on 1% interest rates, I think the cracks are beginning to show in the inventory of homes for sale and the way the nonoccupied real estate investors are behaving.
If you call the National Association of Realtors, they will say that prices are going to bounce back up, but there are a million signals that this is serious. It's not like in 2003, when I was talking theoretically that things are overvalued. Now they're more overvalued, foreclosures are up, and investor-owned property prices are going down. Now, it's happening!
Ryst is a reporter for BusinessWeek Online in New York
To read the other interview, click on this link: http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/may2006/pi20060522_740425.htm
 
I dont know how he calculated his percentages but I know he starts at 1981 and finishes in 2006. Let's assume 25 years. If appreciation averaged 3% per year over that period it is sufficient to double the home price nominally.

There were some stretches of flat values in MN. The spurts make up for the relatively flat stretches.:shrug:
 
Rising average rent

Market rents are a function of supply and demand. The CPI distortion comes with the government computation of what rents home owners have to pay. They don't really pay actual rent. The imputed rent is not even based upon the cost of owning.

Apartment complexes were 100% for rent, not owner occupied. Many have been converted to condos and sold to both investors and people who will own and live in them. The net result is a reduction in the supply of cheap rentals on the market because those apartment complexes were converted to condos. The total rental stock has decreased. Now in places like Miami, where condos are still being built, that area is having a new supply of some rentals come on the market. Not all condos that are for rent are offered at the same rent that apartments rent for so it may have a perverted consequence where the average rent appears to have increased for the area.

Single family housing is not really meant to be rental stock. To the degree there is a marginal increase of SFR for rent, they rent for higher rents than condos or apartments. This has the net affect of raising the average rent, even if they are not rented, just offered for rent.

Anyway, the FED is not fooled by the apparent increase in average rent in the CPI but, it has to convince the markets and investors and public that the rise in the CPI is not inflationary. That is going to be some trick. People are concerned about inflation, today and going forward. They see costs going up like gas, food, services, commodities, etc. Talking down the CPI increases is not the same as doing something about it. At some point, market reaction takes over from the FED as the FED looses its credibility. Prices continue to rise in expectation of future inflation. It is called the inflation spiral. Once that happens, the FED will have to slam on the brakes full to floor to show it means business. That will be something similar that occurred in 1980 when Paul Volker took over the FED from Aurthur Burns.
 
rogerwatland said:
I dont know how he calculated his percentages but I know he starts at 1981 and finishes in 2006. Let's assume 25 years. If appreciation averaged 3% per year over that period it is sufficient to double the home price nominally.

There were some stretches of flat values in MN. The spurts make up for the relatively flat stretches.:shrug:
No,
He has a comparative statistical analysis between 1981-2003 which is 61% in 23 years so lets say 2.65% per year appreciation, and 2003 to mid 2006 , which is 35% in 3 years so lets say 11.66% per year appreciation. Now, you can compare 2.65% per year appreciation to 11.66% per year appreciation and conclude what happened to the market. Besides that, his view on housing is completely different from the other interview with NAR economist that seems bias. I think Tabott view is closer to reality than NAR economist if you compare the two .
 
Last edited:
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