Housing Bubble?

[quote]hedo wrote:
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.[/quote]

Yeah, like I said, it depends on your time frame. From the stuff I have been reading, it seems that the real-estate-market cycle tends to take about twice as long as the stock-market, generally on overall up and down trends.

I wouldn’t say that you shouldn’t buy a place, and I don’t think I have – what I have said was that you shouldn’t buy unless you know you want to stay put for awhile – they say 10 years on average (that was before the current boom cycle) in order to completely recover the transactions costs from the buy and sell transactions.

As for investment properties, that’s a whole different ball of wax. I would stay away from them right now if you’re thinking short term and financing with borrowing.

I live in Orange County, CA, and I own 2 homes.
I don’t see the huge “bubble”, that people have been talking about for quite some time now. Obviously, prices have been going up like crazy, but that is our market.

You’d be foolish to think that you can wait to see if prices will drop in order to purchase a house.
Interest rates are rising. In general terms, I’d rather have a 1+% lower rate, than a $50,000 cheaper house (average home price is $550k+ here). You can do the math. And I don’t see prices dropping more than 10% even if “the bubble burst”.
If a person has made a lot of money in the past 5 years, and wants to make some quick cash, then selling right now is fine. Prices have gone up some 10-20%, depending on the location, over last year. But if you’re looking to buy a first house in this market, waiting doesn’t make sense to me. Take advantage of the low interest rates.

Ask all the people who thought that houses were too expensive just a couple of years ago.
If you’re not looking to flip these homes, then you’re in it for the long haul, and if so, there’s no better time than now.
As for expenses for rental properties, including insurance, those aren’t as high as you may think.
Nothing is a sure thing, but IMO I don’t see a huge price drop at all in the future.

I think there are two fundamentally different conversations going on here.

One side is saying buying a home to live in with the intention to keep it for a long time is a good thing.

The other side (mostly me) is saying that buying investment properties with the idea that you’ll get a short-term capital gain is a very bad idea right now, particularly if you’re going to finance with a mortgage. I wouldn’t be too hot with the idea of buying a property and being a landlord either, but that has to do with a lot of other considerations as well as the investment aspect.

Underlying everything is the overarching idea that there is good reason to believe that the current real-estate markets in several “hot” areas might experience a rapid deflation in price.

Whether the idea of that bubble popping would affect your decision to buy a house would depend on whether you would envision yourself in the position of having to sell again in the relatively near (less than 10 years) future.

If you need a place to live in a town you want to live in long term, I wouldn’t try to time the market here any more than I would try to day trade – in other words, keep your long-term perspective. If you’re there short term and are just looking to cash in on rising prices, I’d think about it a whole lot more.

But on the other hand, I just wouldn’t buy investment properties right now.

Aside from everything else, just how much of your net worth do you want to tie up in relatively illiquid, relatively undiversifiable, and highly leveraged real-estate investments? If the bubble pops, you could get really screwed.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
One side is saying buying a home to live in with the intention to keep it for a long time is a good thing.[/quote]

Let’s look at that from a purely economical pespective:

I’ll take two almost identical condos in San Jose’s Cahill Park development (brand new). That development has one are for sale and another for lease, but the condos are essentially identical (2 bdr, 2 bath, 2 car garage).

The lease price is $1,900 per month; the sale price is $400k if you take into account the appliances, floor, kitchen and stuff.

The maintenance costs are minimal, especially because being a condo the largest ones are shared among all the members of the community.

A $400k repayment mortgage (i.e., not 100% of payments are for interest) at a reasonable 6% rate, with a 30-year term, will look like this:

Monthly Payment: $2,398

  1. First year:
  • Average monthly interest: $2,387
  • Avg Tax Discount (25% bracket): $597
    = Avg Intest cost: ($1,790)
  1. Second Year
  • Average monthly interest: $1,964
  • Avg Tax Discount (25% bracket): $491
    = Avg Interest cost: ($1,473)
  1. Fifth Year:
  • Average monthly interest: $1,846
  • Avg Tax Discount (25% bracket): $462
    = Avg Interest cost: ($1,384)
  1. Tenth Year:
  • Average monthly interest: $1,653
  • Avg Tax Discount (25% bracket): $745
    = Avg Interest cost: ($1,240)

By the fifteenth year, the costs start going down real sharply. However, these days, very few people stay anywhere that long.

So you start off by only saving very little, but very quickly (as early as the second year) you start by saving $400 a month, and quickly start to save a lot more than that.

Now the problem here are the intial costs, including but not limited to: loan origination or underwriting fees, broker fees, and transaction, settlement, and closing costs. And, if you sell the house, the commission to the realtor.

All of those together add up, to around 10% of the value of the house ($40k, in my example).

It takes you a whopping 8 years to recover that in savings – if your equity doesn’t increase; On the other hand, if your equity increases for as little as 4%, it takes only 2 full years. If it keeps increasing at 12%, well, obviously you’ll recover your costs in less than a year.

If there is a bubble and the bubble bursts, looking at past patterns, one can expect the market to take at least 10 years to recover to the current levels, which would be time enough to recover the initial and selling costs just by the base savings.

So, if you’re very risk adverse, only buy if you plan to stay put for 10 years. That’s the only “99% safe” bet you can make right now.

If you don’t think there’s a bubble though, owning is the best choice unless you plan on moving every year.

hspder:

Thank you for putting numbers to what I was trying to say – I think your example illuminates it nicely.

BTW, are you an economics professor or a business-school professor? And for you to be even considering a move from Stanford to Seattle, I assume there would be some other factors involved other than just a change in scenery…

hspder: By “saving” $400 a month, you mean that money is going to principal rather than to interest? Just trying to follow along…

BB: I think we generally agree, and many of my responses are more geared toward the “never buy” or “wait til the market gets better to buy” crowd. Most people simply aren’t liquid enough to try to make a quick profit off of real estate. If you have tons of money to throw around (and that you don’t mind losing), I can see how it would be very profitable. But for the reasonably average Joe, I think we’d both agree that IRAs, 401Ks, mutual funds, and other investment vehicles are inherently much safer.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Thank you for putting numbers to what I was trying to say – I think your example illuminates it nicely.[/quote]

You’re welcome!

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, are you an economics professor or a business-school professor?[/quote]

Well, both…

My PhD dissertation (thesis) was on Microeconomy and Game Theory. I’m an Associate Professor of Economics currently teaching students on the MBA program at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And for you to be even considering a move from Stanford to Seattle, I assume there would be some other factors involved other than just a change in scenery…[/quote]

I’ll admit I can’t say I’m seriously considering Seattle yet. I’d give it a 20% chance at this point. I mentioned mainly to illustrate my point that a lot of people are no longer feeling that the Bay Area is “worth it”.

Also I can’t really describe what’s going on at Stanford’s GSB, but it’s basically “losing its magic”. A lot of the more brilliant academia and the best students are fleeing to other parts of the country, looking for a place where they can “breathe” better.

There’s a lot of political discussion going on too, and I don’t necessarily like the way it’s going.

That builds a lot on my frustration, of course, since it’s the interaction with students and academia that makes this job interesting.

One alternative I have is completing my forever-in-progress PhD thesis on String Theory and move back to the School of Humanities and Sciences. However that could quickly backfire because they’re focusing on bio-tech and even though Stanford has a particle accelerator all the “fun with muons” is to be had at Europe’s CERN these days.

The other dillemma is that the GSB is offering me a lot of money to stay.

So I have to decide betwen beeing rich with dumb students, poor with unknown students or middle-class with average students and crappy weather.

Decisions, decisions…

[quote]nephorm wrote:
hspder: By “saving” $400 a month, you mean that money is going to principal rather than to interest? Just trying to follow along…[/quote]

Well, it means that your net worth is increasing by $400 vs giving them to your landlord.

Your net worth can increase by having those $400 going to principal OR through reduced tax contributions (due to the way the amount that is going to interest is discounted from your taxable income).

I hope this clarifies it – I usually explain this with pictures, I’m not used to explain it in words, I’m sorry…

[quote]hspder wrote:
Now the problem here are the intial costs, including but not limited to: loan origination or underwriting fees, broker fees, and transaction, settlement, and closing costs. And, if you sell the house, the commission to the realtor.

All of those together add up, to around 10% of the value of the house ($40k, in my example).[/quote]

Forgot to mention: I did not include the insurance (homeowner’s) costs and the property taxes on purpose, because they’re relatively negligible for most people (on average 1% of the house’s value) and I underestimated the income tax savings enough that it will compensate that.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
BB: I think we generally agree, and many of my responses are more geared toward the “never buy” or “wait til the market gets better to buy” crowd. Most people simply aren’t liquid enough to try to make a quick profit off of real estate. If you have tons of money to throw around (and that you don’t mind losing), I can see how it would be very profitable. But for the reasonably average Joe, I think we’d both agree that IRAs, 401Ks, mutual funds, and other investment vehicles are inherently much safer.

[/quote]

I think you’re right nephorm.

If I had the proper time-frame, I wouldn’t let current market conditions scare me (too much – I’m still relatively risk-averse for a purchase of this size…).

W/r/t home as investment, I think it’s taken on that characteristic for a lot of folks – particularly Baby Boomers – because they didn’t take advantage of the 401(k)s and other investments, or because they did them in a very undiversified fashion and got killed when the tech bubble burst.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
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

Now THAT’s a deal I would dearly love to have.[/quote]

Well, it would require me transferring. It is common practice in the industry (and I think with many large companies).

[quote]BFG wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
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

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

Well, it would require me transferring. It is common practice in the industry (and I think with many large companies).[/quote]

Yeah, unfortunately, not so much at law firms. Not even big ones – it’s hard enough to get them to allow you to transfer to another office if you want a change of scenery…

FYI, this post says a recent IRS ruling disallows home-equity-loan interest deductions to the AMT – not as bad as non-deductibility of mortgage interest, but it could serve to make real-estate wealth even more illiquid as the AMT spreads its reach.

http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/000892.php

March 18, 2005
MY HOME EQUITY LOAN IS DEDUCTIBLE. ISN’T IT?

Home equity loans are very popular. They have lower interest rates than credit card debt. Their tax deductibility often clinches the deal. Unfortunately, for many taxpayers that deduction is a mirage.

A Revenue Ruling issued yesterday highlights the often-overlooked dark side of home equity loans: they are deductible for regular tax, but not for alternative minimum tax.

In Revenue Ruling 2005-11 ( http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-05-11.pdf ), a taxpayer borrowed $100,000 to purchase a home. Over time, and after one refinancing, he had paid the balance down to $80,000. He then refinanced the home again for $110,000, not using any of the refinance proceeds to improve the home.

In computing his deduction for regular tax purposes, the taxpayer can deduct his interest on the entire $110,000 balance. In computing the interest for AMT, however, he can only deduct interest on $80,000. At a 7% interest rate, that translates into a lost deduction of $2,100.

As we’ve discussed ( http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/cat_amt.php ), AMT is becoming the default tax system for more and more taxpayers. This is especially true in states like Iowa with high state income taxes, which are not deductible for AMT. Almost any two-earner professional couple with children is a likely AMT candidate in Iowa.

The moral? Don’t bank on a home equity loan deduction unless you know you are not paying AMT.

Trading Places: Real Estate Instead of Dot-Coms

[quote]100meters wrote:
Trading Places: Real Estate Instead of Dot-Coms

These two quotes from the middle of that article are very scary:

[i]“South Florida,” he said, “is working off of a totally new economic model than any of us have ever experienced in the past.”

The can’t-miss aura of real estate has also helped nudge many families to invest more of their personal wealth in real estate by buying more expensive homes and taking on riskier mortgages - much as ordinary workers used their 401(k) plans to bet on company stocks. [/i]

Overall the article gives views dissenting from the bubble theory as well, and the reasons why they do – but those two quotes are still scary.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Trading Places: Real Estate Instead of Dot-Coms

These too:

[i]But by one measure, houses in at least a few metropolitan areas are as expensive as telecommunications stocks were in 1999, relative to their underlying value.

The average house in San Jose, Calif., costs 35 times what it would cost to rent for a year, according to Economy.com, a research company. In New York and West Palm Beach, this ratio - a rough equivalent of the price-earnings ratio for stocks - is almost 25.

In March 2000, the price-earnings ratio of the Standard & Poor’s 500 - the combined price of the stocks, divided by their profits per share - peaked around 32, and it was briefly even higher for telecommunications stocks. The S.& P.'s P.E. ratio has since fallen to around 20. [/i]

Once again, if you’re going to live in your house for 10 years or more, great. Buy and hold. But it’s a scary time to invest in real estate.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The average house in San Jose, Calif., costs 35 times what it would cost to rent for a year, according to Economy.com, a research company.
[/quote]

If this is true it’s unbelievable!

Here’s an article from today’s WSJ on those adjustable and all-interest mortgages:

Personal Property
Buy Now, Pay Later
New mortgages entice borrowers by keeping initial payments low. But make sure you know the real price.

By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 28, 2005; Page R5

The pitches of mortgage lenders have started to sound more like those of car-loan companies: It’s all about keeping the monthly payments down.

As interest rates inch higher and home prices continue to soar in many parts of the country, loans that promise affordable payments and enticing introductory rates can be a practical way to stretch your dollars to secure a home that otherwise might be out of reach. For some people, they’re also a way to keep more cash on hand for other investments.

But these mortgages come with a cost that isn’t always immediately apparent. With many of these products, home buyers won’t make a dent in their principal balance for several years. And buyers who take out large mortgages could wind up in a deep financial hole if real-estate prices fall.

For many people, the danger in this overheated market may be taking out a mortgage that in the long run they can’t really afford.

“In some circumstances, they can buy more house than they might otherwise qualify to buy” with some of these products, says Jack Guttentag, professor of finance emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School in Philadelphia. “That doesn’t necessarily make it a wise decision for the borrower, but it is a decision a lot of them are making, especially in areas where prices are appreciating very rapidly.”

These new mortgages come in all shapes and sizes. The product most in demand, especially in areas where home prices exceed national averages, allows borrowers to make interest-only payments for several years – though of course that means you aren’t chipping away at the principal. Another hot product, which can be used in combination with the interest-only option, is the hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage, which allows borrowers to enjoy a fixed rate for several years, before shifting to an adjustable rate. Still another provides several payment options each month, including a bare-minimum payment that could cause the loan balance to swell.

Losing the Edge

“A year ago, it was a no-brainer for someone who thought they’d be in a home less than 10 years to consider an ARM over a fixed-rate loan because the difference in rate was very wide, as much as two percentage points at some point,” says Bob Walters, chief economist at Quicken Loans, Livonia, Mich. “The advantage is still there, but it’s not as pronounced, so we are seeing more people taking longer-term [hybrid ARMs] and more 30-year fixed.”

More popular still is a mutation of the hybrid ARM: adding an interest-only option, where borrowers pay interest and no principal in the loan’s early years, which typically coincide with the fixed period of the ARM. This keeps monthly payments much lower than if you were also paying down principal. In fact, about 33% of all new home loans are interest-only, according to LoanPerformance, a mortgage-data company in San Francisco that tracks 46 million mortgages monthly. In some areas, it’s much higher than that: In San Diego, interest-only loans make up more than 67% of new mortgages.

These loans are almost – but not quite – like renting your house with the option to buy. You have a locked-in purchase price, and you also receive a nice tax deduction on the interest. You can pay down principal if you want to during those interest-only years – typically up to 20% annually – without penalty.

If you don’t, or if you don’t refinance with a traditional mortgage, you will face a much higher payment when the fixed period expires. That’s because the loan must then be amortized over a condensed period, say 20 or 25 years, as opposed to 30. Pair that with a potentially higher interest rate, and payments can skyrocket.

How It Works

Case in point: a $300,000, 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with an interest rate of 5.5% would cost $1,703.37 monthly. Compare that with a 5/1 interest-only ARM with a 4.5% rate (5/1 means the initial rate is fixed for five years, then adjusted annually). This loan costs $1,125 a month, and saves borrowers $578.37 each month for those first five years. (Another caveat: The interest rate on interest-only loans typically runs about an eighth or a quarter of a percentage point more than on comparable interest-and-principal loans. So the rate on a 5/1 interest-only ARM would be slightly higher than on a regular 5/1 ARM.)

But the interest-only ARM can deliver a double whammy. When the five-year interest-only period expires, if the rate rises two points (the biggest change some ARMs can make per adjustment), to 6.5%, the monthly payments will soar more than $900 to $2,025.62 – reflecting both the higher rate and the start of principal payments. That’s not a winning proposition for someone who wanted a low monthly payment.

Lenders say most people are tailoring the loans to their life plans and typically expect to move after the fixed-rate period is up, with hopes that their home has appreciated in value, or to refinance. But both options still involve risks: Borrowers may need to stay in their house longer than anticipated and rates could march higher. Or, if housing prices decline, even slightly, you may be left with a mortgage larger than your home’s value.

Meanwhile, a traditional 5/1 ARM on the same $300,000 mortgage with a 4.5% interest rate would cost $1,520.06 monthly – considerably more than with the interest-only version. But after the five-year fixed period, more than $26,500 in principal would have been paid off. Then if rates have risen to 6.5%, payments would increase to $1,846.51 – nearly $200 a month less than the interest-only version.

“An interest-only loan is like a steak knife. If you grab it by the right end, it’s a good tool,” says Greg McBride, an analyst at Bankrate.com, a consumer-finance Web site based in North Palm Beach, Fla. “It enables borrowers to devote more money to maximizing their investments, their 401(k), their IRA, additional real estate or other investments that they’d rather devote money to rather than paying back principal.”

Three years ago, David Lutz and his wife built their 6,000-square-foot dream home in Cohasset, Minn. However, saddled with $50,000 in credit-card debt due in part to home-appliance purchases, they recently decided to refinance. They wrapped the card debt, along with a $15,000 loan for Mr. Lutz’s business of designing and selling orthopedic equipment, into a 30-year fixed mortgage with a 10-year interest-only period. (Their interest rate declined about a third of a percentage point.) Though their mortgage grew to $382,000 from about $316,000, their payments are $1,127 a month lower, and they can funnel the difference into Mr. Lutz’s business when need be. They are also applying between $300 and $600 a month to principal, which Mr. Lutz says will total somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000 after 10 years.

“We were able to handle every payment, but I’m growing my business,” Mr. Lutz says. Moreover, since the nature of his business sometimes causes a 45-day stretch between paychecks, the new loan gives him more flexibility to pay what he can when he can. He also rid himself of credit-card interest, which isn’t tax-deductible.

“People are really payment-focused; they’re less concerned about the forced-savings aspect of fully amortizing loans,” says Frank Sillman, executive vice president of mortgage banking at IndyMac Bank, a unit of Los Angeles-based IndyMac Bancorp Inc.

More Options

Another new product some lenders are pushing, known largely as option adjustable-rate mortgages, also provides payment flexibility for people with varying incomes. The option ARM gives borrowers as many as four payment options each month, which typically include a minimum payment, an interest-only payment, a traditional payment based on a 30-year term or an accelerated payment on a 15-year term.

“The big disadvantage is that a buyer could opt for a smaller monthly payment at the cost of building equity or a large payment shock later if unpaid interest is added to the balance,” says Bankrate.com’s Mr. McBride.

For instance, borrowers who make minimum payments might find they aren’t covering all of the interest due in a given month. Any shortfall is added to the loan balance. Known as “negative amortization,” this leaves the customer owing a larger principal amount.

Option ARMs aren’t the best choice if short-term rates continue to rise because their rates could approach fixed-rate levels or even higher. “The option ARMs have a relatively low starting payment, but the actual interest rate in the second month jumps quite a bit from the start rate,” says Joe Rogers, executive vice president at Wells Fargo Mortgage, a Des Moines, Iowa, unit of Wells Fargo & Co. “These loans will definitely rise over the next few months based on the index they are tied to.”

Here’s how they work: Rates adjust monthly after the introductory period expires, which can be as short as a month. A new minimum payment is calculated each year. Minimum payments typically can’t rise more than 7.5% annually, though they can rise more than that every five years to be sure the borrower is on schedule to pay off the loan by the original term, usually 30 years. And the minimum option can be eliminated if the loan balance hits a certain threshold, usually 110% to 125% of the original loan amount, lenders say.

Confusing, yes. That’s why borrowers now more than ever need to focus on educating themselves.

“The products that feature more risks aren’t bad products per se, but they should be a niche market for people who understand the risks and have the financial wherewithal to manage the risk if conditions don’t turn out exactly as they hope,” says Keith Gumbinger of HSH Associates, financial publishers in Pompton Plains, N.J. “Unfortunately, this business does suffer from a bit of financial hucksterism… It’s safe to say that some of the mortgages today are the foreclosures of tomorrow.”

–Ms. Siegel Bernard is a reporter for Dow Jones Newswires in New York

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The average house in San Jose, Calif., costs 35 times what it would cost to rent for a year, according to Economy.com, a research company.

If this is true it’s unbelievable!

[/quote]

It’s not true. It’s a wild exageration. That would mean that the same house that costs $2,000 a month to rent would cost $840k. That’s ridiculous – show me a $2k house to rent that compares to a $840k home that is for sale and I’ll move there tomorrow.