Housing Bubble?

[quote]tzoley wrote:
Can anyone add from the other side of the spectrum? I am about to jump into this game, albeit late. Gettin’ cold feet now.

BB i am PM’ing you for that spreadsheet.

My home FL has jumped 27% in 12 months. How can’t we get into this market? Can we safely say it strictly depends on the location? Not interest rates?[/quote]

in the end, a house is a home and not just an investment. the longer you plan on living there, the better you are insulated. in my case, my company would pay me back any difference if my house actually lost value. what is it worth TO YOU?

BFG

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Granted, it may eventually recover, but if you own something worth less than what you paid for it – or even worth precisely what you paid for it, given inflation (historical rate of return on houses overall is approximately 1% on average nationwide), you’d be better off putting the difference in costs between renting and buying in the bank.[/quote]

That’s only true if you’re looking to turn the house around for a profit, and even then I have a few problems with the logic.

If you buy a house and pay it down, regardless of the resale value, you will eventually not have to pay a dime.
And I’d argue that the 1% figure is not representative of the market in this area at all… look at property values for the last 20 years or so, even in neighborhoods that have slowed rates of increase.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
That’s only true if you’re looking to turn the house around for a profit, and even then I have a few problems with the logic.

If you buy a house and pay it down, regardless of the resale value, you will eventually not have to pay a dime.
And I’d argue that the 1% figure is not representative of the market in this area at all… look at property values for the last 20 years or so, even in neighborhoods that have slowed rates of increase.

[/quote]

If you rent a piece of property for $750 per month that would cost you $1,000 to buy, you are left with $250. Put that $250 in the bank every month and eventually you’ll have enough money in interest that you won’t have to worry about paying rent. You will also be able to pass that next egg on, just like passing a home on.

[quote]Cory089 wrote:

At first, I was going to say that I didn’t think there was a major bubble, but the more I thought about it, the more I think there probably is. With more and more people having access to mortgages (thanks to greater streams of available capital), it is easier to get a house. Of course, this creates a vacuum in the rental market. So, the question is going to be who suffers in the bursting - the homeowner, the landlord, or both.[/quote]

An excellent point that I forgot to make. Mortgage companies are in heated competition with one another for even poor risks. They just seem to want to throw money at people – my friend just bought a condo, and they wanted to try to get him to look at something even more expensive and give him a mortgage at 5X his gross annual salary (he is engaged but was applying by himself).

It reminds me of the venture capitalists funding anything .com – you could have formed myass.com and gotten money at the height of the craziness. Basically it got hot, then a lot more money went chasing into that market – more money than there were good businesses in which to invest. Now it seems there is more money than there are good risks – both property and people.

[quote]Cory089 wrote:
And let’s throw another wrench into the equation. In a couple of years, the babyboomers will reach retirement. In a little over a decade, they will reach their average life span. This is going to open up a huge number of existing homes - many in prime communities. How is this going to effect the market?[/quote]

I think this will affect the top of the market first, because a lot of the Baby Boomers haven’t been the best savers,so they will want to get equity out of their homes and trade down to smaller units. This could actually be good for the middle and lower markets in terms of adding buyers to the market. But I don’t know how long a dichotomy between the upper and lower ends of the market can sustain itself.

Then of course, as he pointed out, once they pass on that will put houses back on the market. Heirs might keep stock portfolios they inherit, but they’re likely to sell houses, particularly when the kids no longer live in the same area as the parents.

[quote]Cory089 wrote:
I think the scariest part is the number of people with “investment” homes. I got to believe that this could be a bad idea soon. If that bubble starts to turn, it could get ugly quick. I mean, isn’t that what really hurt the tech market? A bunch of people buy .com stocks, the price drives upward, people realize that they have overvalued, everyone sells, and the bottom drops out.[/quote]

That’s the fear all right.

[quote]Cory089 wrote:
As one of my professors said about the stock market: Stocks grow at 12% per year. Always have, always will. So when you have a short run where it grows at a much higher rate, that means one of two things. Either the laws of investing have changed (not likely) or it’s going to come down. Do you think 100 years of stocks are wrong?

I have to believe the same is true about the housing market. Sure, you’ll get a bumb due to the ease of mortgages, but how much of a bump can it be.[/quote]

I wouldn’t even trust the “stocks grow at 12%” thing. Our sample size is too small… But stocks should outperform bonds generally based on risk. =-)

[quote]nephorm wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Granted, it may eventually recover, but if you own something worth less than what you paid for it – or even worth precisely what you paid for it, given inflation (historical rate of return on houses overall is approximately 1% on average nationwide), you’d be better off putting the difference in costs between renting and buying in the bank.

That’s only true if you’re looking to turn the house around for a profit, and even then I have a few problems with the logic.

If you buy a house and pay it down, regardless of the resale value, you will eventually not have to pay a dime.
And I’d argue that the 1% figure is not representative of the market in this area at all… look at property values for the last 20 years or so, even in neighborhoods that have slowed rates of increase.

[/quote]

You’re not counting upkeep costs. As a renter, I don’t have any. I also don’t have any interest payments. So I’m just paying the cost of shelter, and I can invest the rest in something besides real estate.

Now, if the underlying real estate appreciates more than another investment, bully for the home owner. If it doesn’t, and tax breaks don’t make up the difference, then it’s a losing proposition.

A house as an investment is just like any other investment, but you get better tax breaks (assuming no AMT bomb). It tends to be a longer term investment, and you need somewhere to live so you get other benefit besides the investment, but in analyzing it it’s important to keep that perspective. It’s less liquid than a lot of other investments, and there are large transaction costs associated with either selling or getting your money out via an equity loan.

That said, it’s obviously hasn’t been a bad investment over the past few years – it’s been excellent. But some markets look like bubbles to me. Combine that with my unknown time horizon, and I’m just a little to skittish to jump in right now in this hot of a market.

[quote]BFG wrote:

in the end, a house is a home and not just an investment. the longer you plan on living there, the better you are insulated. in my case, my company would pay me back any difference if my house actually lost value. what is it worth TO YOU?

BFG[/quote]

Now THAT’s a deal I would dearly love to have.

This is an interesting article that explains some of the future factors that could affect housing prices in some of the major markets in the future.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/230yswkg.asp

In My area housign is still booming. The houses they are building are in the $300K range and above. We arent talking more than an acre of land with these homes either.

Starter home neighborhoods are not built. It’s all executive housing.

Eventually the market is going to dry up and they will no longer find people willing to pay or who are being paid what they are asking for these homes.

[quote]Cory089 wrote:
If you rent a piece of property for $750 per month that would cost you $1,000 to buy, you are left with $250. Put that $250 in the bank every month and eventually you’ll have enough money in interest that you won’t have to worry about paying rent. You will also be able to pass that next egg on, just like passing a home on.[/quote]

I think your numbers are a bit off. In the markets I’m familiar with, there isn’t a 25% gap between owning and renting… if there were, you might be correct.

However, you state that you should put the $250 in the bank every month. In a 3% money-market account, after thirty years you will have around 150K. That’s 16 years of rent payments, assuming your rent has stayed, and will stay, fixed at $750 for the rest of your life.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You’re not counting upkeep costs. As a renter, I don’t have any. I also don’t have any interest payments. So I’m just paying the cost of shelter, and I can invest the rest in something besides real estate.
[/quote]

That’s true about upkeep costs, although those are generally lower than you’d think, especially if you can do work yourself.
I’m not sure what your point is about interest payments? Interest is built into the mortgage payment… if you look at an amortization chart, the first couple of years you’re paying mostly principal in each monthly payment, and throughout the life of the loan, you end up paying more and more of the principal per month.

And while you might be paying the cost of shelter, that cost is determined by what the costs are to your landlord. Even with high competition forcing rents down, rent is only going to drop so much lower than the actual cost of owning the property.

A lot of this comes down to personal investing preferences. You probably shouldn’t think of your primary home as being an investment, simply because a lot of people then avoid doing all the other kinds of investing that they should be doing. I don’t think, in the majority of cases, that owning a home is a losing proposition, unless you’re in a very depressed area or you have a high likelihood of having to move suddenly. My two cents.

I also confess that I get a little annoyed at people who speak of investing as a sure-thing. Whether it be the stock market or real estate, there are always risks. I am not, for example, savvy enough to invest money in the stock market (other than in mutual funds). 9 out of 10 of my investments have lost me money, and it really didn’t matter what kind of research I did before I bought the stocks. On the other hand, I know that if I buy a house for 200K, and I let someone ELSE pay my mortgage (a tenant), even if the house drops slightly in value, I’ll end up making a profit, or at least breaking close to even.

Let’s see an example. I’m going to assume a 200K house, with 10% down, at a fixed interest rate of 7%. My monthly mortgage payment would be approximately $1200 a month, but with mortgage insurance and hazard insurance, let’s guesstimate that my total cost per month is $1400. I can rent the house for $1300 a month, so I am effectively paying $100 a month. Assuming rent remains fixed, that I rent it for the full 30 years, and that I don’t refinance, in 30 years I will have paid 36K for the house in monthly payments, plus 20K down. Total cost: 56K. Let’s assume the house went down in value to 150K, a 50K loss, and that I want/need to sell it at that point. That means I’ll have made 94K off the deal… basically I was getting 4% per year off my investment, even though it was a “loser.” Let’s assume, instead, that the house retains but does not increase its value. In that case, I’ve made 144K… which is 7%, still in a pretty bad scenario. Finally, let’s assume that we gained 50K of value over the 30 years (which is more than reasonable in most markets). In that case, I was getting the equivalent of 10%/year, and made 194K.

Again, I hate when people say that any investment is a sure thing… certainly there are risks involved, and you might lose your shirt. But as a long-term investment, real estate isn’t bad.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Cory089 wrote:
If you rent a piece of property for $750 per month that would cost you $1,000 to buy, you are left with $250. Put that $250 in the bank every month and eventually you’ll have enough money in interest that you won’t have to worry about paying rent. You will also be able to pass that next egg on, just like passing a home on.

I think your numbers are a bit off. In the markets I’m familiar with, there isn’t a 25% gap between owning and renting… if there were, you might be correct.

However, you state that you should put the $250 in the bank every month. In a 3% money-market account, after thirty years you will have around 150K. That’s 16 years of rent payments, assuming your rent has stayed, and will stay, fixed at $750 for the rest of your life.
[/quote]

nephorm,

Did you read the WSJ article on the gap that I posted above? Here in DC, the gap is around 40%…

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
You’re not counting upkeep costs. As a renter, I don’t have any. I also don’t have any interest payments. So I’m just paying the cost of shelter, and I can invest the rest in something besides real estate.

nephorm wrote:
That’s true about upkeep costs, although those are generally lower than you’d think, especially if you can do work yourself.
I’m not sure what your point is about interest payments? Interest is built into the mortgage payment… if you look at an amortization chart, the first couple of years you’re paying mostly principal in each monthly payment, and throughout the life of the loan, you end up paying more and more of the principal per month.

And while you might be paying the cost of shelter, that cost is determined by what the costs are to your landlord. Even with high competition forcing rents down, rent is only going to drop so much lower than the actual cost of owning the property.[/quote]

It depends on the type of mortgage you get. A lot of folks at this point are signing up for “all interest” mortgages, in which they are building no equity and making solely interest payments for a set number of years. They are doing this in order to qualify for the rates that are advertised – that and getting ARMs. If you want a fixed-rate mortgage, you’re going to have to sign on for a higher interest rate.

As to the cost of renting vs. owning, it seems pretty low now – check out the article above. That’s one of the things that makes me think “bubble”.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It depends on the type of mortgage you get. A lot of folks at this point are signing up for “all interest” mortgages, in which they are building no equity and making solely interest payments for a set number of years. They are doing this in order to qualify for the rates that are advertised – that and getting ARMs. If you want a fixed-rate mortgage, you’re going to have to sign on for a higher interest rate.
[/quote]

Interest-only mortgages are a bad idea. I actually have an ARM… there have been changes to ARMs in the last few years, so they’re actually pretty good in many cases. But you can still get fixed rate mortgages lower than 9%.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
A lot of this comes down to personal investing preferences. You probably shouldn’t think of your primary home as being an investment, simply because a lot of people then avoid doing all the other kinds of investing that they should be doing. I don’t think, in the majority of cases, that owning a home is a losing proposition, unless you’re in a very depressed area or you have a high likelihood of having to move suddenly. My two cents.

I also confess that I get a little annoyed at people who speak of investing as a sure-thing. Whether it be the stock market or real estate, there are always risks. I am not, for example, savvy enough to invest money in the stock market (other than in mutual funds). 9 out of 10 of my investments have lost me money, and it really didn’t matter what kind of research I did before I bought the stocks. On the other hand, I know that if I buy a house for 200K, and I let someone ELSE pay my mortgage (a tenant), even if the house drops slightly in value, I’ll end up making a profit, or at least breaking close to even.

Let’s see an example. I’m going to assume a 200K house, with 10% down, at a fixed interest rate of 7%. My monthly mortgage payment would be approximately $1200 a month, but with mortgage insurance and hazard insurance, let’s guesstimate that my total cost per month is $1400. I can rent the house for $1300 a month, so I am effectively paying $100 a month. Assuming rent remains fixed, that I rent it for the full 30 years, and that I don’t refinance, in 30 years I will have paid 36K for the house in monthly payments, plus 20K down. Total cost: 56K. Let’s assume the house went down in value to 150K, a 50K loss, and that I want/need to sell it at that point. That means I’ll have made 94K off the deal… basically I was getting 4% per year off my investment, even though it was a “loser.” Let’s assume, instead, that the house retains but does not increase its value. In that case, I’ve made 144K… which is 7%, still in a pretty bad scenario. Finally, let’s assume that we gained 50K of value over the 30 years (which is more than reasonable in most markets). In that case, I was getting the equivalent of 10%/year, and made 194K.

Again, I hate when people say that any investment is a sure thing… certainly there are risks involved, and you might lose your shirt. But as a long-term investment, real estate isn’t bad.[/quote]

I think you’re leaving a few things out of your analysis. Cost of renting – including cost of finding a tenant, keeping said tenant happy, tending to legal relationship with said tenant, and, sometimes, suing the tenant should be figured into that equation. If you don’t plan to be on call (and how many of these investors really want to be professional landlords?), there’s the cost to pay someone to manage your property. Then there’s the added insurance cost in terms of liability and whatnot you’ll need for a rental property – you could try to pass that on to the renter, but that will only work in a tight rental market. And there are specific legal rules that apply to landlord/tenant law in terms of how you have to upkeep the property – if it’s yours, you might decide to let something go, but if you’re renting you might not be able to do that.

Unless you are planning to rent to a personal, trusted friend or family member, there’s a lot more too it that that. That’s just the stuff off the top of my head. Personally, I would not want to be a landlord.

That said, I think real estate is a very viable long term investment, depending on the property and the market. Right now, in certain markets, it’s a little scary for my tastes and my undefined timeframe.

BB

In the process of selling my condo in Lower Manhattan. Owned it for 5 yrs. It has doubled.

With the money I am buying a large house in NJ and upgrading a summer place I have in upsate PA. I think I’ll still have money left over.

NYC real estate is enormously expensive. If you have the cash it can be a wild and profitable ride. I don’t think I would jump in now, in the city, but who knows. If you hold on long enough it seems to always bounce back.

I think nephorm and BFG are right in their assessment of home ownership. There’s an old saying that goes something like, only invest what you can afford to lose. It’s hard to imagine investing with your house.

I would hate to consider my home purely as an investment. Folks that get interest only financing are really screwing up in my opinion. They have to be leveraging their position now against a rise in real estate prices in the future. If they are doing this with their principal residence, they need help.

I would love to have the liquidity to invest in real estate - but not with my home. I’m probably in the minority on this, but safe trumps sorry pretty much all the time.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
nephorm,
Did you read the WSJ article on the gap that I posted above? Here in DC, the gap is around 40%…[/quote]

I should’ve been more clear… I was talking about monthly cost, not TCO. I think TCO figures are misleading in this context, especially when you’re renting a home out.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think you’re leaving a few things out of your analysis. Cost of renting – including cost of finding a tenant, keeping said tenant happy, tending to legal relationship with said tenant, and, sometimes, suing the tenant should be figured into that equation. If you don’t plan to be on call (and how many of these investors really want to be professional landlords?), there’s the cost to pay someone to manage your property. Then there’s the added insurance cost in terms of liability and whatnot you’ll need for a rental property – you could try to pass that on to the renter, but that will only work in a tight rental market. And there are specific legal rules that apply to landlord/tenant law in terms of how you have to upkeep the property – if it’s yours, you might decide to let something go, but if you’re renting you might not be able to do that.

Unless you are planning to rent to a personal, trusted friend or family member, there’s a lot more too it that that. That’s just the stuff off the top of my head. Personally, I would not want to be a landlord.
[/quote]

BB: I did leave some things out, but I think you’re overstating the case. While I am not personally a landlord, two of my very close friends are. The cost of finding a tenant is negligible… posting an ad in the Washington Post is generally very cheap. Your main cost is the frustration of waiting around for someone to show up. As far as legal relationships with the tenant, I don’t know anybody who gets harangued to that extent. A good lease spells out exactly what the landlord does and doesn’t do/pay for. As far as suing the tenant, you almost never do that… you evict them and count it as a loss of a couple months of rent.

There are laws about property upkeep, but again, I don’t think they’re nearly as troublesome as all that.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think nephorm and BFG are right in their assessment of home ownership. There’s an old saying that goes something like, only invest what you can afford to lose. It’s hard to imagine investing with your house.
[/quote]

Exactly. Primary homes are a fundamentally different type of investing than, say, the stock market. I think that owning a home is better, even if rent costs are low, in the long run… there are many benefits to home ownership that go beyond profit. And given that most people never trade down on a house, you’re unlikely to be “making money” on your home anyway… you’re just trading one mortgage for another, unless you become a landlord.