Housing Bubble?

OK,

I don’t think we’ve discussed this before, but I am deeply interested in this topic. I live in the DC metro area, and I am convinced that there is a housing bubble locally. I’m not sure about a national bubble – in fact, there’s probably not a national bubble – but in certain local markets, particularly on the coasts (the Bay Area, LA, OC and SD, Boston, NYC, DC, Miami, etc) it seems an inescapable conclusion that we’re in the middle of one. To me, listening to people talk about their condo investments and “how they just CAN’t go down” sounds suspiciously like hearing cabbies and law students talk about their stock portfolios back in the late 90s.

I find this especially true when people speak of “flipping” properties, which they buy in a manner very similar to people buying stocks on margin – they come up with a small down payment and leverage the rest via a mortgage (probably all-interest or an ARM). Sure the leverage increases profits on the way up, but it sure hurts on the way down.

Plus, I read an article a few weeks ago that said fully a quarter of new purchases were “investments”. This means people aren’t planning to live in these houses – and this type of buyer would be the type to quickly put a home back on the market if prices fell (undercutting the traditional wisdom that prices wouldn’t fall because people would just live in the houses rather than sell them).

Then today, the coup de grace in my analysis – an article in the WSJ that says that in overheated markets, it’s basically cheaper to rent than to own – in some by almost a factor of two.

What do you all think? I’m thinking I wish I could short specific local real-estate markets…

Nice topic, BB. Have you compared the real estate values in NYC, particularly lower Manhattan, with those in the DC area, or other hot spots on the east coast?

The reason I ask this is because, I thought the bottom fell out of the NYC real estate market immediately post 9/11. It has made a strong rebound, but I don’t know if it is a bubble, or not.

Anyhow - I saw the tech bubble forming in '99 - 2000, but only a few clients listened.

I don’t know that the real estate bubble is of tulip proportions yet, but when you see speculators start leveraging in anticipation of continued escalating values - I’d be wary.

How would one go about shorting the real estate market? That sounds really interesting.

Here’s the article about cost of renting vs. cost of owning:

In the Hottest Markets,
Renting Is the Real Bargain

Cost Gap of Being a Tenant
Vs. Owning Hits Widest Level
In More Than a Decade
By RUTH SIMON and RAY A. SMITH
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 22, 2005; Page D1

Potential home buyers increasingly are facing a difficult economic and emotional quandary: Soaring housing prices in many parts of the country have made renting a bargain.

In the past, home prices and rents tended to move in alignment. But the relationship between the cost of renting and owning has broken down as low interest rates and an array of new mortgage products have helped turn many renters into homeowners. That has helped propel home prices upward – and, in turn, has weakened the rental market, prompting landlords to cut rents or at least raise them less aggressively.

The result is a widening of the gap between the cost of renting and the cost of buying in some of the nation’s hottest housing markets – a gap now at its biggest since at least 1994, according to Torto Wheaton Research in Boston, and by some accounts at its biggest since the 1970s. The data suggest the economic case for renting, at least in the short term, has grown significantly in these markets.

Since 1999 and 2000, the relationship between rents and home prices has “broken down,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Economy.com. With interest rates falling, it’s “not surprising that the relationship has changed,” Mr. Zandi adds. “What is surprising is that it has changed so much.”

In San Francisco, the monthly cost of renting an apartment is just 45% of the monthly cost of buying a home, down from 67% in 2001, according to an analysis of 21 key markets prepared for The Wall Street Journal by Torto Wheaton. In Washington, D.C., rental costs are now just 59% of the cost of owning, down from 82% in 2001. In Miami, rental costs are 63% of the cost of homeownership, down from 89% in 2001.

The potential cost savings for renters could well be even larger, given that the analysis doesn’t factor in property taxes and other expenses associated with homeownership. Mitigating that is the fact that mortgage interest and property taxes typically are deductible from federal income taxes. Homeowners often can deduct interest and real-estate taxes on their state and local tax returns, too. And many borrowers have opted to lower their current monthly payments by using an adjustable-rate or interest-only mortgage. (The 21-city analysis compared average-price apartments and median-price homes and assumes that a home buyer takes out a 30-year mortgage. Those properties may not be directly comparable, but the analysis shows how the relationship between renting and owning has changed over time.)

Despite the lower comparative cost of renting, the enduring tug toward homeownership – coupled with the fear of missing out on further price appreciation and even being shut out of the market for good – still is driving many people to buy. The rate of homeownership in the U.S. was 69.2% in the fourth quarter of 2004, compared with 67.5% in 2000.

Many buyers who have done the math are betting that rents eventually will rise and that any savings from renting will be more than offset by rapid gains in home prices – a pattern that has been true in recent years as prices have moved up at above-average rates. Still, many economists say those outsize gains are likely to become a thing of the past as interest rates move higher.

“People have formed expectations for future price increases based on past price increases,” says Susan Wachter, a professor of real estate at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. “Their expectations may not play out the way they thought they would…They may in fact find that they are buying in at the top of the market.”

Some would-be buyers are having second thoughts. Tanvir Mangat, a management consultant in Washington, D.C., has been looking for a condominium or a townhouse off and on for the past year. “Unless we can get a good price for what we want, we’re going to continue to rent,” says Mr. Mangat, who has had trouble finding something in the $600,000 to $750,000 price range that meets his needs. “The only thing we’re losing [by renting] is we’re not building equity right now.”

The fact that the cost advantage of renting has widened in many areas is even more remarkable given that apartment rents have begun to edge upward. Those modest rent increases were more than offset by strong gains in home prices in many parts of the country.

Average home prices climbed 8.3% last year and 7.5% in 2003, according to data compiled by M/PF YieldStar, with many markets posting double-digit gains. Rents, meanwhile, inched up 1.7% last year, after falling 1.6% in 2003.

Because housing and rental markets depend on local circumstances, the relationship between home prices and rentals varies significantly around the country. The median home price in metropolitan Las Vegas is $266,400, which works out to $1,274 a month, assuming a buyer puts 20% down and takes out a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, according to HSH Associates. The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment there is $860. In the San Diego metro area, the median home price is $551,600, which works out to about $2,686 a month, while the rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $1,625.

The national apartment market was hurt severely by the economic downturn. In Phoenix, a one-bedroom apartment that fetched $700 a month a year or two ago now can be had for $550, says Lisa Sampson, a broker with All Star Apartment Rentals. Meanwhile, “the same house you could have bought for $150,000 last year is now $250,000.”

Whether renting or buying is the best move depends on a variety of factors, of course. These include how long you expect to stay in the home and whether what is on the market to buy or rent meets your needs. Michael Dubis, a financial planner in Madison, Wis., says he also advises clients to consider what their money could earn elsewhere.

The longstanding rule of thumb has been that buyers need to stay put for five to seven years to justify the closing costs and other outlays involved. But in the hottest markets, says Raphael Bostic, director of the real-estate development program at the University of Southern California, that length of time has shrunk, in part because home prices have moved up so rapidly.

“I see a lot of people who are choosing not to stay very long and are still buying,” says Lauren Goloboy, a sales associate with Coldwell Banker in Brookline, Mass., a suburb of Boston. Ms. Goloboy says she is frequently asked how long you have to own a home to receive favorable tax treatment on capital gains. (The answer: more than one year to qualify for the 15% rate.)

Mara Schonberg, an attending physician, bought a two-bedroom condo in the Boston area last summer for about $295,000, even though she may move in three to five years. “I would probably spend less per month on a rental,” she says. But, she adds, “I’d rather take a risk on the real-estate market. I’m tired of having landlords.”

The rental bargains aren’t limited to the nation’s hottest housing markets. Steve Hendry of Re/Max Associates of Dallas says he recently found a tenant for a home in Plano that had been vacant for four months by agreeing to a lease that runs for six months instead of a year. “I’ve reduced the price on probably all of the listings I have at least once to create more activity,” adds Mr. Hendry, who recently dropped the price on a home in Allen to $1,200 a month from $1,295.

“For the near term, it’s pretty clear that rents are a bargain in many places relative to the cost of buying the same unit,” says Eric Belsky, executive director of Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies.

Write to Ruth Simon at ruth.simon@wsj.com and Ray A. Smith at ray.smith@wsj.com

Here’s a view from the outside:

Still want to buy?

Mar 3rd 2005
From The Economist print edition

According to our latest house-price indicators, it is now much cheaper to rent than to buy a house in many countries

WHEN The Economist launched its global house-price indicators in 2002, residential-property markets were merely warming up. Today they are red hot in many of the 20 countries we cover: in half of them, prices have risen by around 10% or more in the past year (see table). But for the first time since we started to track them, housing markets in several countries have slowed sharply.

The most dramatic slowdown has been in Australia where, according to official figures, the 12-month rate of increase in house prices fell to only 2.7% in the fourth quarter of last year, down from nearly 19% at the end of 2003. Another index, calculated by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which is based on prices when contracts are signed rather than at settlement, shows that average house prices fell by 7% in the year to December; prices in Sydney plunged by 16%. The Reserve Bank of Australia’s quarter-point increase in interest rates this week is likely to give prices another downward nudge.

Britain’s housing market has also cooled since last summer. The Nationwide index, which we use, was still up by 10% in the year to February, down from 20% growth in July. Other anecdotal evidence suggests that prices have fallen since last summer in many parts of the country.

In contrast, America’s housing bubble continues to inflate. Although the rate of increase slowed in the fourth quarter, prices were still up by 11.2% over the year. In California and Washington, DC, housing prices rose by more than 20%. Alan Greenspan, the Fed’s chairman, recently admitted in congressional testimony that there may be property bubbles in ?certain areas? and a risk that prices could decline. There is certainly evidence that prices are being driven by speculative demand: a new study by the National Association of Realtors shows that one-quarter of all houses bought in 2004 were for investment, not owner-occupation.

House prices are still rising rapidly in continental Europe. French house-price inflation has accelerated to 16%, its fastest on record in real terms and only a whisker behind Spain’s 17%. Prices in Italy, Sweden and Belgium are also rising at close to 10%. Excluding Germany, where prices fell again in 2004, average home prices in the euro area have risen by 12.5% over the past year, causing some concern at the European Central Bank.

Punishing prices, puny yields

The main reason why housing markets have cooled in Australia and Britain is that first-time buyers have been priced out and demand from buy-to-let investors has slumped. While house prices have soared, rents have risen modestly or even fallen in some cities. In America, Britain, Spain New Zealand and Australia, average net rental yields (allowing for management fees, maintenance and empty periods) have fallen to 3.5% or less, well below mortgage rates. Shane Oliver, the chief economist at AMP Capital Investors, estimates that net rental yields on houses in Sydney are only 1%. Landlords are nowhere near covering their true costs, but many still hope to make their profit from capital gains. That sounds ominously similar to the days of the dotcom bubble, when it was argued that the link between share prices and profits no longer mattered.

According to calculations by The Economist (with the help of Julian Callow of Barclays Capital), house prices are at record levels in relation to rents (ie, yields are at record lows) in America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium. America’s ratio of prices to rents is 32% above its average level during 1975-2000. By the same gauge, property is ?overvalued? by 60% or more in Britain, Australia and Spain, and by 46% in France (see chart)

The ratio of prices to rents is a sort of price/earnings ratio for the housing market. Just as the price of a share should equal the discounted present value of future dividends, so the price of a house should reflect the future benefits of ownership, either as rental income for an investor or the rent saved by an owner-occupier. To bring the ratio of prices to rents back to equilibrium, either rents must rise sharply or prices must fall. Yet central banks cannot allow rents to surge as this would feed into inflation. Rents directly or indirectly account for 29% of America’s consumer-price index, so rising inflation would force the Fed to raise interest rates more swiftly, which could trigger a fall in house prices. Alternatively, if rents continue to rise at their current annual pace of 2.5%, house prices would need to remain flat for over ten years to bring America’s ratio of house prices to rents back to its long-term norm. There is a clear risk prices might fall.

Lower real interest rates might justify a higher p/e ratio. For example, real interest rates in Ireland and Spain were reduced significantly when these countries joined Europe’s single currency?though not by enough to explain the whole rise in house prices. In Britain, where tax relief on interest payments has been scrapped, real after-tax rates are close to their average over the past 30 years, and so do not justify a higher price/rent ratio. In America, too, real post-tax interest rates are not historically low, in part because mortgage-interest tax relief is worth less at lower rates of inflation. For instance, if interest rates are 10%, tax relief is 30% and inflation is 7%, the real after-tax interest rate is 0%. If interest rates are 6% and inflation is 3% (ie, the same gap as before), and tax rates stays the same, the real interest rate is 1.2%.

The unusual divergence between house prices and rents does not just affect investors; it also undermines the conventional wisdom that it is always better to buy a house, because ?rent is money down the drain?. Today in many countries it is much cheaper to rent than to buy.

Rent asunder

Take a two-bedroom flat in London, which you could buy for ?450,000 ($865,000). To rent the same flat would currently cost ?1,700 a month. In addition to a 6% mortgage rate, a buyer would face annual maintenance and insurance costs of, say, 1.25%. In the first year, the rent of ?20,400 compares with total mortgage interest and maintenance payments of ?33,000, a saving of ?12,600. Interest payments would be less if a large deposit were paid, but in that case the income lost from not investing that money elsewhere has to be taken into account.

Assume that rents rise by 3% a year, in line with wages, while house prices from now on rise in line with inflation of 2%. At the end of seven years (the average time before the typical homeowner moves), you would be almost ?35,000 better off renting, taking account of the capital appreciation and buying and selling costs. In other words, even without a fall in real house prices?which many believe to be likely?buying a house in Britain today seems a poor investment.

The figures look even more striking in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it is possible to rent an $800,000 house for $2,000 a month. Making the same assumptions about rents and house prices, but also deducting tax relief on a fixed-rate mortgage and adding property taxes, a buyer would pay $120,000 more over seven years than if he had rented. House prices in San Francisco would need to rise by at least 4% a year (2% in real terms) for it to prove cheaper to buy a house. Since 1950 American house prices in real terms have risen by an annual average of just over 1%. To expect them to rise faster from their current dizzy heights smacks of irrational exuberance, to say the least.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Nice topic, BB. Have you compared the real estate values in NYC, particularly lower Manhattan, with those in the DC area, or other hot spots on the east coast?

The reason I ask this is because, I thought the bottom fell out of the NYC real estate market immediately post 9/11. It has made a strong rebound, but I don’t know if it is a bubble, or not.

Anyhow - I saw the tech bubble forming in '99 - 2000, but only a few clients listened.

I don’t know that the real estate bubble is of tulip proportions yet, but when you see speculators start leveraging in anticipation of continued escalating values - I’d be wary.

How would one go about shorting the real estate market? That sounds really interesting.[/quote]

I have a spreadsheet that compares price changes according to zip codes – I think it covers the whole country. PM me if you want me to email you a copy.

As to shorting, I don’t know how you’d do it with precise correlation. I figure that the best way to go about it would be to find stocks of companies that are directly and closely correlated with the particular real-estate market – in this case, local building companies would probably be a good proxy. Then, depending on how you wanted to do your short, you could either buy puts or sell calls on the stock. For me, I wouldn’t be comfortable with much beyond buying a fairly long-term put.

It would take a lot of research and reading of SEC filings to see how dependent the particular companies would be to a reversal in the markets though, and the more geographically diverse the companies are the harder it would be – unless you found some that specialized in the hot markets.

I suppose you could also look into REITs and mortgage-lenders who aren’t diversified into other areas.

That’s the best I can figure it anyway. What do other people think? Anybody familiar with a better shorting strategy?

Good thread.

I’m in southern Cali. It is crazy here. I have made as much money on my house in 2 and half years as I have at work. Only that the house is tax-free should I decide to sell. Go figure. I would have been better off buying two houses and not working at all. :wink:

Everybody and their dog is either (1) selling real estate, (2) doing mortgages / refinancing, or (3) BOTH. It is eerily similar to the late 90’s tech stock thing. As soon as you hear everyone say “but real estate never goes down - it’s a sure bet,” that is when the shit is rapidly approaching the fan.

What to do now? I gotta live somewhere. BTW, I am building a second house. Construction hasn’t even started, but I have (on paper) already made $10k on it.

Fuct or not?
BFG

One more:

http://www.forbes.com/home/strategies/2005/03/02/cx_da_0302topnews.html

Fresh Pricks In Housing Bubble
Dan Ackman , 03.02.05, 9:00 AM ET

NEW YORK - There is a sharp debate over whether there is a bubble in the U.S. housing market generally or in certain localities, or whether there is a bubble at all. But the past two days have brought fresh warnings that home prices are unsustainable.

First, a new study by the National Association of Realtors shows that 23% of all homes purchased in 2004 were for investment, while another 13% were vacation homes.

Traditionally, one of the bulwarks against a sharp decline in housing prices has been the fact (or belief) that most people live in their homes and would be unlikely to sell even if the market heads downward. But the same logic would not apply to investment homes or vacation homes. While there has long been anecdotal evidence that non-occupant buyers are fueling the rise in home prices, the NAR study claims to be the first to thoroughly analyze the phenomenon.

The study, based on 2003 census data, says there are 43.8 million second homes in the U.S. While 6.6 million of these are vacation homes, far more, 37.2 million, are investment units. This compares with 72.1 million owner-occupied homes. About a quarter of last year’s home sales were for investment homes, NAR says.

Nearly 80% of investment buyers rent their homes. While an owner-occupant is unlikely to sell his or her home (except to buy a new one), for an investor, the decision to sell is much more purely economic: If rents can’t sustain a mortgage, there is no point in owning an investment property, except for the hope that home prices will inevitably rise, as they have been.

So far, there has been no problem. Since 2001, the median price of an investment home has risen 25.4%, from $118,000 to $146,900. (In most markets, the average price is much higher than the median.) But if prices start to fall or if mortgage rates start to rise, there could be a rush to sell and a crash.

Otherwise, some investment buyers could find themselves unable to get renters at all, as rental vacancy rates are near historic highs. With many buyers putting down almost no cash, they could simply let their bank foreclose and walk away.

Investment buyers could be made even more sensitive to interest rate increases than is normally the case. The reason is the increasing popularity of adjustable rate mortgages. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, more than 32% of mortgages are now adjustable. The popularity of ARMs is on the rise even though the spread between the so-called teaser rate and the fixed rate on a standard 30-year mortgage has narrowed.

An adjustable mortgage is most attractive to a borrower who figures he won’t own the house for long. That could be a person who figures he will move to a different area or will soon be able to afford a better home. Or it may be a person who figures he’ll unload the place to a greater fool.

All these trends are playing out against a larger trend of double-digit price increases for the average new home nationally, and 20% or more price jumps in many markets, including some of the most populous markets in the Northeast, Southern California and Las Vegas. At the same time, the share prices of home builders like Toll Brothers (nyse: TOL - news - people ), Centex (nyse: CTX - news - people ), D.R. Horton (nyse: DHI - news - people ) and Pulte Homes (nyse: PHM - news - people ) are all up by 25% to 100% in the last six months. Top mortgage lenders Countrywide Financial (nyse: CFC - news - people ) and Bank of America (nyse: BAC - news - people ) have increased their lending by 40% and 31%, respectively, in a year.

Most studies of housing markets are conducted by people with a vested interest in keeping spirits high. As a result, even those who issue warnings tend to mute their gloom. For instance, a study reported in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times warns that Southern California home prices “could be at or near a peak,” noting they are likely to level but are unlikely to fall by much.

That study is by Christopher Cagan, an economist for First American, a title insurer. Cagan notes that since 1998, prices in Los Angeles-Long Beach, Orange County, Riverside-San Bernardino and San Diego have been climbing by about 20% to 40% above their long-term average annual growth rate of 3.2% to 6.2%.

He notes that in the last downturn, from 1995 to 1997, prices dipped 10% to 25% below their “historical averages.” Cagan is quoted as saying, “We won’t be seeing 20%, 25% or 30% appreciation rates anymore,” and he’s allowing for a 5% decline.

As with all bubbles, it’s fun to ride up and scary to get off while the roller coaster is still climbing. But if prices have doubled in four years, unfueled by income gains of anything close to that level, what’s to stop, say, a 30% or 50% drop?

BB: I recently bought a home in Bowie, Maryland. The “value” of my home has risen over 30K in the 9 months I’ve owned it. Rental prices are up as well as housing prices. I also work near Annapolis. Very near, in fact… in a smaller town that was traditionally much lower in value. Now, this may be skewed because things are closer to the water, but housing prices are shooting up, and previously “bad” areas are now being renovated and selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars over the original price. Do I think the increases will slow? Yes. However, I don’t think prices, at least in this area, will drop appreciably.

The DC/Metro area has a lot of cash, and a lot of jobs. As long as there’s a high demand for work, and higher salaries, and a large number of people moving into these areas who will need housing, the prices will remain high and go higher.

As far as renting being cheaper than owning: you know better. If you have all the cash upfront, for example, that’s different than getting an interest-only loan and subletting. In general, yes, if you put 10 percent down it will be challenging to be able to meet your mortgage payment and condo/HOA fees, but it’s generally possible. Even if you are renting at a “loss,” however, you still OWN the property. The tenant is just paying your mortgage (or a portion of it).

As far as flipping goes, I think there’s a lot of money to be made there if you a) know how to do the work yourself, b) are prudent in what you buy. On a related note, when I first started looking for places to buy, I looked at a lot of HUD foreclosures. Following the logic of pre-spike RE, I thought I’d get a good deal. Some of these places were in rotten shape, and required a lot of rehab. Not a problem, if you expect that you’re getting a good price. It turns out that the HUDs were actually selling HIGHER than the regular houses in the same neighborhood! Why? Because unscrupulous RE Agents realized that they got the entire commision on the sale of a HUD (as opposed to splitting it on a regular sale), and convinced their clients that they were getting such a good deal that they should bid higher and higher. I suppose those clients didn’t think to check comps… a HUD house right across from mine (and virtually identical) sold for several thousand more than I paid. Crazy, man.

[quote]BFG wrote:
Good thread.

I’m in southern Cali. It is crazy here. I have made as much money on my house in 2 and half years as I have at work. Only that the house is tax-free should I decide to sell. Go figure. I would have been better off buying two houses and not working at all. :wink:

Everybody and their dog is either (1) selling real estate, (2) doing mortgages / refinancing, or (3) BOTH. It is eerily similar to the late 90’s tech stock thing. As soon as you hear everyone say “but real estate never goes down - it’s a sure bet,” that is when the shit is rapidly approaching the fan.

What to do now? I gotta live somewhere. BTW, I am building a second house. Construction hasn’t even started, but I have (on paper) already made $10k on it.

Fuct or not?
BFG[/quote]

BFG,

CA is the craziest of the crazy. Up and down the coast is simply insane. The Bay Area is somewhat insulated in that building restrictions cover it, so there just isn’t supply to meet its demand – but if there’s a lot of leveraged investment buying going on then it’s still vulnerable. Of course, it’s been crazy there since before my family moved away back in 1988, and it seems to just get crazier.

SoCal is a different, and I think more vulnerable, market – like you said, everyone and his mom there seems to be in real estate, so you have the possibility of a double-whammy – in other words, a market downturn could result in a local economic hit on top of loss of real-estate values. That would be brutal. Remember what happened to SoCal real estate in the early 90s? BRUTAL…

[quote]nephorm wrote:
BB: I recently bought a home in Bowie, Maryland. The “value” of my home has risen over 30K in the 9 months I’ve owned it. Rental prices are up as well as housing prices. I also work near Annapolis. Very near, in fact… in a smaller town that was traditionally much lower in value. Now, this may be skewed because things are closer to the water, but housing prices are shooting up, and previously “bad” areas are now being renovated and selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars over the original price. Do I think the increases will slow? Yes. However, I don’t think prices, at least in this area, will drop appreciably.

The DC/Metro area has a lot of cash, and a lot of jobs. As long as there’s a high demand for work, and higher salaries, and a large number of people moving into these areas who will need housing, the prices will remain high and go higher.

As far as renting being cheaper than owning: you know better. If you have all the cash upfront, for example, that’s different than getting an interest-only loan and subletting. In general, yes, if you put 10 percent down it will be challenging to be able to meet your mortgage payment and condo/HOA fees, but it’s generally possible. Even if you are renting at a “loss,” however, you still OWN the property. The tenant is just paying your mortgage (or a portion of it).

As far as flipping goes, I think there’s a lot of money to be made there if you a) know how to do the work yourself, b) are prudent in what you buy. On a related note, when I first started looking for places to buy, I looked at a lot of HUD foreclosures. Following the logic of pre-spike RE, I thought I’d get a good deal. Some of these places were in rotten shape, and required a lot of rehab. Not a problem, if you expect that you’re getting a good price. It turns out that the HUDs were actually selling HIGHER than the regular houses in the same neighborhood! Why? Because unscrupulous RE Agents realized that they got the entire commision on the sale of a HUD (as opposed to splitting it on a regular sale), and convinced their clients that they were getting such a good deal that they should bid higher and higher. I suppose those clients didn’t think to check comps… a HUD house right across from mine (and virtually identical) sold for several thousand more than I paid. Crazy, man. [/quote]

nephorm,

You’re the man. =-) Just remember the gains are all paper right now.

Of course, when you’re in my position, on the outside looking in, it’s always scary. I thought the stock market was precariously overvalued in 2000, but I didn’t get out – I just stopped buying more. And missed out on another year and a half of gains – but also on whatever that would have translated to in terms of loss. It’s always hard to time.

If you’re planning to live in an area for 10 years, and you think you’re in a home that can meet your needs, I wouldn’t worry and would just assume I would hunker down and outlast any downturn. My biggest fear is that I would buy something at the top with a 20% down payment (thus 80% mortgage), and the bottom would fall out and the market would lose my down payment, and then I would want to move for a new job or something. Ugh.

Now, as to the DC area, I agree with you as to there being a lot of demand – but if there are a lot of “flippers” in the market there will still be a lot of selling pressure if the market slows down – especially if they can’t rent it immediately. So first there would be downward pressure on rents, and then units would go on the market – people don’t hold investment property when it costs them more per month than their mortgage. If interest rates are going up, which they are, and people got adjustable-rate mortgages, which they are doing, that will just increase the pressure.

Since DC is so hot, I think there’s good reason to think that there are more “flippers” here than the national average number – in fact, I’d be willing to be that “flippers” – who represented 24% of all new unit purchasers in 2004 nationwide – are solely located in the hot markets, with a direct correlation between how hot the market is and the number of “flippers” in that market. CA is the hottest, but DC is still sizzlin’.

Scary man.

I’m generally very conservative with investing… I lost a lot of money (for me, as a college student) when the tech bubble burst. If you’re looking for someplace to buy, and you’ve got 20%, you should definitely do it… interest rates are very low right now. If there’s a chance you’d want to move relatively soon, then keep renting.

I plan to live in this area for at least the next 10 years… if I stay single (which seems likely at this point) then I could live in my house for another decade, assuming the neighborhood doesn’t go downhill (always a possibility). If you’re serious about a possible purchase, though, check out the Bowie area. The prices are much lower than Crofton and Annapolis (which border Bowie, if you aren’t familiar with it), though it is unfortunately situated in PG County. Crime rate is much lower than the rest of the county, however, and prices are rising. You can still get some good deals.

I too missed out on an opportunity to get involved in a REIT at its early stages in the San Diego, Chicago, and Las Vegas markets. Sucks. I am sure I could have doubled my money.

At some point though these markets have to correct. I hear way too many stories of people with dual incomes of around 75,000 trying to support to million dollar mortagages. There is way too much specualtion right now. Unless you intend to stay in a house for a long time or have a limited investment risk, I wouldn’t buy a house in a very hot market.

30K…Single…Lucky!!!

Geez - try living in the Texas panhandle, in a very small rural town. We paid 20K (that’s 20,000) for a 1500 sq.ft. starter. I won’t be able to get 15 for it.

We are in the process of purchasing the last house we will ever live in, 3200sq. ft. 4 BR, 3 Bath, 3 car garage, for under 70K.

So tell me again how you make money in real estate?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
30K…Single…Lucky!!!

Geez - try living in the Texas panhandle, in a very small rural town. We paid 20K (that’s 20,000) for a 1500 sq.ft. starter. I won’t be able to get 15 for it.

We are in the process of purchasing the last house we will ever live in, 3200sq. ft. 4 BR, 3 Bath, 3 car garage, for under 70K.

So tell me again how you make money in real estate?[/quote]

Step 1: Don’t be in the Texas panhandle…

[quote]rainjack wrote:
30K…Single…Lucky!!!

Geez - try living in the Texas panhandle, in a very small rural town. We paid 20K (that’s 20,000) for a 1500 sq.ft. starter. I won’t be able to get 15 for it.

We are in the process of purchasing the last house we will ever live in, 3200sq. ft. 4 BR, 3 Bath, 3 car garage, for under 70K.

So tell me again how you make money in real estate?[/quote]

Just kidding. I am very jealous. I wish I could figure out a way to make a DC salary while living in a town with that cost of living. After I figure that out, I will work on world peace…

BTW, the 1300 sq. ft. house I grew up in – in Mountain View, CA – my parents paid $80K for it in 1977. Now it would run around $800K easy. Too bad we moved…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BFG wrote:
Good thread.

I’m in southern Cali. It is crazy here. I have made as much money on my house in 2 and half years as I have at work. Only that the house is tax-free should I decide to sell. Go figure. I would have been better off buying two houses and not working at all. :wink:

Everybody and their dog is either (1) selling real estate, (2) doing mortgages / refinancing, or (3) BOTH. It is eerily similar to the late 90’s tech stock thing. As soon as you hear everyone say “but real estate never goes down - it’s a sure bet,” that is when the shit is rapidly approaching the fan.

What to do now? I gotta live somewhere. BTW, I am building a second house. Construction hasn’t even started, but I have (on paper) already made $10k on it.

Fuct or not?
BFG

BFG,

CA is the craziest of the crazy. Up and down the coast is simply insane. The Bay Area is somewhat insulated in that building restrictions cover it, so there just isn’t supply to meet its demand – but if there’s a lot of leveraged investment buying going on then it’s still vulnerable. Of course, it’s been crazy there since before my family moved away back in 1988, and it seems to just get crazier.

SoCal is a different, and I think more vulnerable, market – like you said, everyone and his mom there seems to be in real estate, so you have the possibility of a double-whammy – in other words, a market downturn could result in a local economic hit on top of loss of real-estate values. That would be brutal. Remember what happened to SoCal real estate in the early 90s? BRUTAL…[/quote]

Affirmative. My fall back is that I work in the oil industry, where salaries have just started an upward tear resembling that of real estate trends. If oil prices continue (which they likely will) at these levels, the economy will suffer, and I may get screwed on the real estate side. On the plus side, I should be making enough income to offset that.

I thought this market was fuct when I bought in 2002. Now I just don’t think - it’s much less stressful. A lot of intelligent people have lost by analysis-paralysis and taking no action, whereas many clueless idiots have made millions. Only in California.

BFG

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I wish I could figure out a way to make a DC salary while living in a town with that cost of living. [/quote]

Hijack:

Start an online business?

You would think the COL would be pretty low, but factor in the cost of gasoline and how far it is to a real store (at least 90 miles round trip, or 200 to get to a ‘big town’). It gets expensive pretty quick. Not to mention the fact that we have to get a new vehicle avery 3 years, and it’s not that much of a savings.

The only time there was a housing bubble was at the time of the great depression when unemployement was 25%. Thats the only thing that would cause a “bubble”. The great appreciation in the housing market will slow down, but you probably won’t see a decrease in house values. Even a sharp increase in interest rates wouldn’t cause depreciation in value, just a slow down from the current 12-18% a year appreciation in many areas.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Nice topic, BB. Have you compared the real estate values in NYC, particularly lower Manhattan, with those in the DC area, or other hot spots on the east coast?

The reason I ask this is because, I thought the bottom fell out of the NYC real estate market immediately post 9/11. It has made a strong rebound, but I don’t know if it is a bubble, or not.

Anyhow - I saw the tech bubble forming in '99 - 2000, but only a few clients listened.

I don’t know that the real estate bubble is of tulip proportions yet, but when you see speculators start leveraging in anticipation of continued escalating values - I’d be wary.

How would one go about shorting the real estate market? That sounds really interesting.[/quote]

You could/can short REITS, and the markets are looking at ways to hedge, because it seems many have this same feeling as b.b. and yourself…see:

These hedges would allow you to “short” basically housing prices…pretty cool.