Housing Bubble?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Here’s an article from today’s WSJ on those adjustable and all-interest mortgages:
[/quote]

All-interest mortgages are quite possibly the worst idea ever; not only because they are extremely risky, but also because people take them for the wrong reason: because they are the only way they can “afford” a $1M home.

I’ve got a newsflash for those people: if the only way you can afford a loan is if you go for interest-only payments, you’re living beyond your means. Rent or get a smaller place.

Because of that I’d run away – fast – from any mortgage lender that even suggests it as a possibility. It reeks of irresponsibility and shadyness.

[quote]hspder wrote:
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!

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.[/quote]

I know there were houses like that in MOuntain View…

But I have no idea about the correctness of the Economy.com stats – they were just quoted in the NYT article.

I completely agree. These are the things that give me pause about certain of the local “hot” markets – if you think that some of the investors who intend to flip properties are using these, and many of those people aren’t the kind who can absorb a big cap loss easily, then it gets scary.

Interesting thread.
The question is ? is this a good time to buy?
I tend to think not. I decided to hang on to my $ and wait for the ??bubble?? to burst.
For those who think otherwise I have a few questions. Why would you buy when the market is obviously ?sellers market?? Why buy at list price or higher? (I?m in the NYC area where they are building like crazy and the prices are outrageous)

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I know there were houses like that in MOuntain View…[/quote]

Sure. As I mentioned before, you can even find houses over $1M. However, they’re far an away better than the $2k condos for rent. There’s just no comparison in square footage, for example.

[quote]brunoG wrote:
For those who think otherwise I have a few questions. Why would you buy when the market is obviously ?sellers market?? Why buy at list price or higher? (I?m in the NYC area where they are building like crazy and the prices are outrageous)
[/quote]

I don’t know about the NYC area, so I can’t comment on that. Interest rates are low, and that’s a good incentive to buy. I think one thing people are missing here is that one of the REASONS rent is going down is because it IS a good time to buy, and so a lot of people are buying. As interest rates rise again, which they inevitably will, rents will start to come up as more people are locked out of the buying market. Again, I don’t know about the NYC area… it’s possible there will be a glut, and prices will crash.

And really, you have to look at the type of investing you’re planning on doing. “Flipping” only makes sense if a home needs a lot of work, but is otherwise desirable, and you can do that work yourself at cost of materials. It also makes sense if you happen upon a great deal (it does happen every once in awhile). Thinking that you’re going to be able to “flip” a house based on market price alone, however, is extremely, extremely risky, and I’d never even try to do it.

If you’re planning on renting a place out, you might be renting at a slight loss. That’s not a big deal, because you’ll make a profit when you sell the property later. Remember, your tenant is paying most of the mortgage, if not the whole thing. If the rental market is extremely depressed, then you’d need some really good reasons to go into it… like knowing that the rental market would pick up again in a year or so, but you wouldn’t be able to afford interest rates at that point (Assuming you can take a substantial loss for a year).

If you just want a house to live in, again, look at interest rates. OTOH, if you wait for higher interest rates, you’ll probably get the house for less, and have less of a downpayment… but your monthly cost might go up.

I?m not talking about rentals properties, just buying a home/condo to live in.

Theoretically I don?t see an advantage of buying just because interest rates are low but you still pay way above market value price for the home. It seems to be a better deal to get
a home at the higher interest rate and pay bellow market rate (from someone desperate to sell) and then refinance when rates go down. Personally I?m not going to be affected by the interest rates that much
(I can put at least 50% down) so I?m betting that the market will bust in a 12 to 24 months, prices might go down 10% or so, interest rates will go to about 7%, a lot of speculators will be desperate to exit the market, and there will be builders desperate to unload condos no one is buying (and all that spells out ?buyers market?). No more bidding on properties and paying above asking price.

I realize market might not be as crazy where you are but here people were getting involved in bidding wars and paying 40, 50 or more G?s above the asking price. I also have an advantage of living in a rent control building and I?m able to save about $4000 a month.

The Fed Starts to Show Concern
At Signs of a Bubble in Housing
May 19, 2005; Page A1

In the debate over whether the housing market is a bubble about to burst, the crowd that argues it isn’t has been able to cite reassuring utterances by Federal Reserve officials. But there are proliferating signs that the housing market is looking a bit frothy. And now the U.S. central bank is beginning to worry more about it.

It isn’t only that housing prices keep rising faster than almost anything else, up 10% on average nationally in 2004, according to the U.S. Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, and up 25% or more in the hottest markets in California, Florida and Nevada.

It isn’t only that the clever mortgage industry keeps coming up with new ways to lend people money to buy houses that involve ever-more leverage and little – or sometimes no – down payment.

It’s that more people are buying second and even third homes, expecting that prices will continue to rise so they can sell the houses quickly at a profit – and that is drawing the Fed’s attention. The National Association of Realtors says its surveys find that 23% of all homes purchased in 2004 were for investment, and a further 13% were vacation homes. It’s as if Americans got tired of the stock market, and decided to look elsewhere to try to lose money.

For a long time, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan dismissed suggestions that the U.S. was in the early stages of a housing bubble. He talked about the extraordinary demand for houses among hard-working immigrants. He emphasized that housing, unlike stocks, is a local market, so it’s almost impossible to have a national housing bubble. He explained that it’s hard to speculate in a house that you own because to sell it you have to move out.

But there has been a little more concern creeping into his commentary in the past few months. “We do have characteristics of bubbles in certain areas, but not, as best I can judge, nationwide,” he told a House committee in February. Mr. Greenspan speaks to the Economic Club of New York at lunchtime tomorrow. If housing comes up in his remarks or if he is questioned on the subject by one of the prominent economists there, look for the Fed chairman to mention – as Fed Governor Donald Kohn did recently – the upturn in people buying vacation homes, second homes or other homes on the risky bet that housing prices will continue to rise as they have lately.

Mr. Greenspan hasn’t yet hit the “irrational exuberance” gong, the phrase he used to warn about the stock market in December 1996. The Fed and other bank regulators, however, this week warned banks to take more care with home-equity loans, noting that such loans are “subject to increased risk if interest rates rise and home values decline.” (Did you say decline? Gulp.) Even a slowing of the pace of increase in housing prices probably would dent consumer spending, which, for the past couple of years, has been helped by Americans tapping their home equity.

Other Fed officials have begun to express some anxiety. In a speech last month, Mr. Kohn said, “A couple of years ago I was fairly confident that the rise in real-estate prices primarily reflected low interest rates, good growth in disposable income and favorable demographics.” Mr. Kohn was a longtime adviser to Mr. Greenspan before his appointment to the Fed board.

No longer. “Prices have gone up far enough since then relative to interest rates, rents and incomes to raise questions; recent reports from professionals in the housing market suggest an increasing volume of transactions by investors, who…may be expecting the recent trend of price increases to continue,” Mr. Kohn said.

A surge in the number of people buying houses as a speculative investment is the contemporary equivalent of the story about Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the late president. According to the tale, he sold his stocks a week before the 1929 crash because he heard a shoeshine boy named Billy touting U.S. Steel and RCA. When the shoeshine boy starts giving you tips, he is supposed to have said, it’s time to get out of the market.

The Fed, which contributed to the housing boom by keeping short-term interest rates so low for so long – and encouraging the bond market to do the same with the long-term rates that determine mortgage rates – doesn’t expect a collapse of housing prices or an economic calamity. Mr. Kohn’s worst case is “an erosion of real house prices” – translation: an increase in house prices that falls short of the overall inflation rate – “rather than a sudden crash.”

Americans who have owned their homes for the past few years have a lot of equity in their homes: $9.62 trillion worth at the end of last year, up 13% from a year earlier, according to the Fed’s tally. Even if house prices fall a bit, homeowners still will have significant equity – except for those who have hocked nearly all the increase in home values with frequent refinancing or large home-equity loans.

But if house prices stop climbing, it won’t be pleasant. Americans will feel poorer – and they’ll spend less as a result.

Write to David Wessel at capital@wsj.com

Timely topic as I am selling a house in Oklahoma and buying one here in Georgia. I just got the new issue of Money and it is the real estate guide for 2005. Two great articles about housing.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/19/real_estate/re2005_schmubble_0506/index.htm

Zell: No bubble here

Sam Zell, the nation’s biggest landlord, has a message for real estate worrywarts: Relax.
May 19, 2005: 11:33 AM EDT
By Gerri Willis, MONEY Magazine

NEW YORK (MONEY Magazine) - Q. Your companies own more apartments and offices than anyone. And you’ve been nicknamed “the Gravedancer” for your ability to correctly read the boom-and-bust cycles in real estate. So if anyone knows the answer to this question, it’s you: Is the bubble about to burst?

A. I’m 63. I’ve been in the business 40 years. I’ve heard about all kinds of “housing bubbles,” and I ain’t seen one yet.

There’ve been short periods when single-family-housing prices fell, but the number of examples of that are really small. A bubble by definition goes poof – the way so many tech stocks did in 2000 – and there’s no value left.

Housing prices, though, are always connected to fundamentals, like the amount of buildable land. A house has intrinsic value.

Q. But U.S. home prices are up about 40 percent in three years. How can this not be a bubble?

A. Econ 101: Prices have gone up because the demand has been much greater than the supply. The country is producing all it can in terms of supply, but what you see is more demand. Over the next 10 years we’re going to add a million new households; much of that’s due to immigration. There are lifestyle influences on demand too.

Over the past 25 years, for example, marriage has been delayed eight to 10 years. It used to be Harry and Sally would graduate college and get married. Now everybody gets married late. Instead of Harry and Sally owning one house in exurbia, you now have two people buying. And think about the longevity of the boomers; they continue to buy.

Q. Is there anything you’re worried about?

A. I do think we’re likely to see the growth of housing prices slow in the next five years, compared with the past five. We’ve had a significant uptick in prices, fueled by low interest rates. But it looks like we’ll see higher rates over the next five years, so demand will go down and you’ll see slower growth in pricing.

Q. How bad could it get?

A. Worst-case scenario? A flat housing market. Look, all I can tell you is we’re the largest owner of apartments in the U.S. and among the largest converters of apartments to condos. If there was a danger of a bubble, would we be in this business? I’ve never been accused of being a Pollyanna; I am the Gravedancer.

Americans don’t understand that we have the cheapest housing in the world. London and Tokyo are more expensive than New York. Why do you think everyone is going to South Florida from Europe? It’s because prices here are cheap compared with there.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/08/real_estate/bubble_debate/index.htm

Will housing prices pop?

Experts debate whether the housing market is an overinflated bubble or a strong seller’s market.
February 9, 2005: 8:06 AM EST
By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Is the real estate market a dangerously overvalued bubble that needs to pop sooner than later, or is the market for homes strong enough that prices can and will keep rising?

Both answers were argued at a forum on the state of the real estate market Tuesday, along with the middle ground that the market is more or less valued just right in its current form.

The forum was sponsored by Demos, a public advocacy group that concentrates on questions of economic opportunity, among other issues. While the group has put out its own papers posing worries about the current debt levels among the middle class, its panel presented a wide range of views on the state of the real estate market.

Arguing that the real estate market is a bubble certain to pop, probably sooner than later, was Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research, a Washington think tank. He presented data showing that while housing prices generally tracked close to the overall inflation rate for nearly 40 years starting in the mid-1950s, home values have grown about 40 percent in real terms since 1995.

He said that’s the kind of rapid rise that is not justified by the fundamentals. He compared it to the late-1990s stock market bubble and in the Japanese real estate market in the 1980s before prices there collapsed.

“There’s a speculative mentality of people thinking housing prices will only go up,” he said. “That’s not the real world.”

Baker’s position was challenged by Jonathan McCarthy, a senior economist with the Federal Reserve of New York, as well as Barbara Corcoran, founder of the Corcoran Group, a leading New York real estate firm.

McCarthy argued that issues such as home improvements and income growth have helped support some of the basic fundamentals of the market. The home improvements have increased the underlying value of the homes more than simple home price data would not capture, he said, and the combination of income growth and low interest rates have increased the affordability of homes even faster than home prices have climbed.

“If there’s a bubble, prices have been bid up beyond the underlying fundamentals, and buyers have done so in the expectation that prices will continue to rise,” he said. “Rapid price increases are not sufficient to say that there is a bubble out there.”

McCarthy did not dispute that there were some markets where housing prices have outstripped fundamentals, but he said that they are mostly along the eastern seaboard north from Washington D.C., as well as along the West Coast. “These areas will always tend to be more volatile,” he said. “But on a national scope there’s probably no housing bubble.”

Corcoran challenged McCarthy’s view that places like New York may be in a housing bubble. She confessed that as a real estate agent her view is biased. “I can’t afford to be open minded,” she admitted to laughter of the crowd.

She pointed to a few key numbers she sees that suggest even a supposed bubble market like New York City is in much stronger shape than before housing prices collapsed here, with the 1987 stock market crash.

“Today, seven out of 10 listings here are selling at or above the asking price,” she said. “In 1987, before the stock market crash, it was three out of 10. When I compare the number of listings over the last year, it’s down 40 percent from the previous year. This is a hell of a seller’s market.”

“I would not be the least surprised if prices go up 25 percent in the next year, even if people out there think I’m smoking dope,” she added. “There’s too short a supply, too many buyers.”

Interesting articles:

The Wall Street Journal

Getting Going

by Jonathan Clements

How Houses Eat Money
June 12, 2005

How hot is the real-estate market? Try reading my mail.

A few years ago, I could offer warnings on the actual costs of homeownership and I would hear hardly a peep. But lately, when I offer similar comments, I am inundated with blistering emails that belittle my intelligence with language unfit for publication.

Along the way, some readers – based on what, I don’t know – have accused me of being a sore loser smoldering in a Manhattan rental. In fact, for the past 13 years, I have owned the same home in Middlesex County, N.J. And if I were delusional, I would claim I have tripled my money.But instead, I crunch numbers. My discovery: Despite owning a house in an extremely buoyant real-estate market, I have – by one measure – made almost no money. And I don’t think I am unusual.

No Improvement

I bought my house in late 1992 for $165,000. Today, it might fetch $500,000, giving me roughly a 200% gain. By contrast, over the same stretch, U.S. homes are up an average 101.7%, according to home-finance corporation Freddie Mac.

Time to celebrate? Maybe not. I have an unfortunate tendency to keep good records, so it is relatively easy for me to calculate how much I have spent over the past 13 years on home improvements, property taxes and mortgage interest. And believe me, it isn’t pretty.

For starters, one reason my home has increased so much in value is because I have spent a ridiculous amount of money fixing it up. The house I bought in 1992 was fairly rundown, and I have ended up revamping the kitchen, adding a bathroom, putting in air conditioning, enclosing the porch, putting on a new roof, replacing the boiler, finishing the attic and goodness knows what else.Tote up the cost of all these projects, both large and small, and the tab comes to some $130,000. It’s an embarrassingly large number, and I wince whenever I think about it. Add that $130,000 to my home’s $165,000 purchase price and my cost is up to $295,000.

I could kid myself that this $130,000 is an investment. And while it is true that these home improvements have boosted my home’s value, there is no way I will recoup the full cost when I go to sell. My “new kitchen” is now nine years old and it is showing its age. Nobody in his or her right mind is going to pay me full price for a second-hand kitchen.

In retrospect, I would probably have been better off purchasing a house that had already been fixed up, thus buying somebody else’s improvements at a steep discount. The problem, of course, is finding a seller who has the same taste. Shag carpeting? I don’t think so.

Losing Interest

Home improvements may have been my largest ongoing cost, but mortgage interest and property taxes aren’t far behind. Indeed, if you are feeling a little too cheery, spend some time leafing through Schedule A of your old federal tax returns, where you detail your itemized deductions.

I did just that, adding up how much I have paid in property taxes and mortgage interest since 1992. Once again, the numbers are disturbingly large. Over the past 13 years, I have coughed up $63,000 in property taxes and $108,000 in mortgage interest.

To be sure, these sums are tax-deductible. But the tax deduction is a little overrated. Fact is, if I hadn’t itemized, I could still have taken the standard deduction. It’s only the extra deduction over and above the standard deduction that represents a true tax benefit.

With that in mind, I went back and found out my standard deduction for each year since 1992. I then subtracted that sum from the total value of my mortgage interest and property taxes.

Assuming that the sum above my standard deduction was deductible at a 28% tax rate, I figure I got some $24,000 in federal-tax benefits from my mortgage interest and property taxes – which means the after-tax cost of these two items was $147,000.

Combine that with my $165,000 purchase price and the $130,000 in home improvements, and I am up to $442,000 – not much below my home’s $500,000 current value. The picture would be even uglier if I counted my initial closing costs, routine maintenance expenses and annual homeowner’s insurance, to say nothing of the innumerable hours of my own time that I have sunk into the place. And while I have no intention of selling, that day will come. Imagine I sold today, paying a 5% real-estate commission. After enriching the brokers involved, I would net $475,000, perilously close to my total cost.

Retirement Home

Ever heard people say their home is the best investment they ever made? There are two possibilities: Either they have never done the math and they are totally out to lunch – or they are making a very astute observation.

Homes can indeed be a great investment. You may not make any money on the appreciation, once you figure in all the expenses of homeownership. But while you are struggling to pay the property taxes and keep water out of the basement, something wonderful happens: You get to live in the place without paying rent.

True, you might have to make mortgage payments, and many folks think of that monthly check as comparable to paying rent. Unlike rent, however, your mortgage payments will come to an end.

Still think the big gain from homeownership comes from price appreciation? Consider this: People usually don’t retire simply because their house has gone up in value. But you often hear of folks quitting the work force just after making their last mortgage payment. Suddenly, their monthly costs go way down – and they can now afford to retire, thanks to the delights of rent-free living.

There has to be a way to short homes – home building stocks with strong geographical concentrations come to mind…


What Happens
If Real Estate Goes Bust

By GREG IP
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 12, 2005; Page D2

Five years ago, the bull market for stocks came crashing to a halt after a glorious run. Now, many worry that the roaring housing market may be headed for a train wreck as well.

What’s the likelihood this could happen? For his part, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said last week that a nationwide housing bubble was improbable, while warning of “froth in some local markets.” He said a broad price decline in the housing market was unlikely to happen or to have much economic impact.

While house prices aren’t likely to deflate as quickly as a hot Internet stock during the dot-com bust, the consequences have the potential to be far more devastating.

Here’s how the stock and housing booms look similar – but differ in several important respects.

The key difference is that stocks are purely financial investments. You can sell a stock on a whim, and you don’t have to run out and buy another. By contrast, people live in houses, and if they sell they have to move – which is both costly and time-consuming.

“How could you have a housing crash?” asks Ted Aronson, managing partner at Aronson Johnson Ortiz, a Philadelphia money manager. “We all just sell our houses and move into a trailer park?”

Houses are also much more expensive to sell. Mr. Greenspan says commission and other transaction costs approach 10% of the price of a home. By contrast, Mr. Aronson says big institutions typically incur transaction costs of 1% to 2% on their stock purchases.

The cost of moving is why homes change hands much less than stocks. Sales of new and existing homes in the U.S. in 2003 were equal to about 6% of total housing units in the U.S. By contrast, annual turnover on the New York Stock Exchange is about 100% of all shares outstanding. A home normally sits on the market for several weeks before selling; a stock usually sells in seconds.

Stocks also move as a single market more than houses do because they are subject to many of the same influences and often are bought and sold as part of a broad portfolio. Houses are more subject to local influences. Stocks can also be sold “short” by people who don’t own them, or via derivatives. You can’t bet on declining housing prices the same way. That means when houses appear overvalued, it’s harder for contrarians to nudge them the other way.

For all these reasons, stocks show much bigger swings than housing values. Inflation-adjusted housing prices and inflation-adjusted stock prices have both declined about a third of the time since 1976, using quarterly averages compared to the same quarter a year earlier. (Stocks are represented by the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index and houses by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight index.)

But the biggest decline in real housing prices was only 6% in 1980. Real stock prices have fallen more than 20% at least eight times, year over year, since 1976. The steepest was 29% in the third quarter of 2001.

So if history holds true, a housing crash is far less likely than a stock crash. But don’t take too much comfort from that.

Since 1941, stocks had never declined three years in a row until 2000-2002. The fact they did reflected the magnitude of the preceding run-up. Housing prices have not seen a sharp drop in 30 years, but they’ve also never risen as much as they have since 1995.

If housing prices do fall, what would it mean for the economy? “A housing bust would be worse [than the stock bust],” says Kenneth Rogoff, an economics professor at Harvard University and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund.

Why? Well, for one thing, housing is worth a lot more. According to the Fed, Americans’ homes were worth the equivalent of 145% of gross domestic product in March; by comparison, their stocks and mutual funds were worth 130% at the market’s peak in 2000, and just 82% now. Second, stock wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest Americans while housing is much more evenly distributed. A 2001 Fed survey found 68% of families own a home and the home’s median value was $122,000. Just 52% owned stocks, either directly or through a mutual or pension fund, and the median value was $34,300. That disparity has since widened.

Families are also better able to tap into the value of their homes to finance the purchase of new homes and other items. Homes are collateral for about $7.7 trillion in mortgage and home-equity debt, whereas total margin debt in investors’ stock brokerage accounts is only $194 billion. For the same reason, a decline in housing prices would put more bank loans at risk; mortgages make up 40% of the assets of U.S. commercial banks, mortgage-backed securities another 16% and stocks less than 1%.

Some economists dispute the notion that housing has a bigger impact on spending than stocks. “The evidence is consistent with sizable ‘wealth effects’ from both sources,” says Dean Maki, chief economist at Barclays Capital. The rich do own most of the stocks, but they also do most of the spending. That means they have a disproportionate impact on the economy.

But Mr. Greenspan thinks homes have a bigger “wealth effect.” Mr. Rogoff agrees, citing IMF research that from 1984 to 2000 in the U.S. and similar economies, a dollar reduction in stock wealth cuts household spending by four cents, but a dollar lost in housing wealth reduces it by seven cents. Mr. Rogoff says the effect may have since grown because home buyers are more leveraged.

The IMF found after studying housing cycles world-wide that “private consumption fell sharply and immediately in the case of housing price busts while the decline was smaller and more gradual after equity price busts.” That’s even though housing price declines were usually smaller at 30%, adjusted for inflation, compared with 45% for stocks. The U.S. had never experienced a decline of such a size in the period the IMF studied, so it’s unclear how much the global experience would apply to the U.S.

There could be other major consequences. The stock bubble did speed up the adoption of new technologies and business models such as Internet commerce, and those benefits have persisted even after the tech bubble burst.

The housing boom has not unleashed any similar revolutionary forces. Sure, more people now own their homes instead of rent, and that might have spinoff benefits in lower crime and greater civic involvement. But if it turns out many new homeowners stretched to buy and eventually will have to give up their homes, those kinds of benefits may prove fleeting.

In a market like Phx. You can buy a house $200k interest only loan . With payments of $1200 dollars a month. Make payments for 10 months equalling $12k sell the house for $300k and make yourself a handsome $88k

[quote]hspder wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Here’s an article from today’s WSJ on those adjustable and all-interest mortgages:

All-interest mortgages are quite possibly the worst idea ever; not only because they are extremely risky, but also because people take them for the wrong reason: because they are the only way they can “afford” a $1M home.

I’ve got a newsflash for those people: if the only way you can afford a loan is if you go for interest-only payments, you’re living beyond your means. Rent or get a smaller place.

Because of that I’d run away – fast – from any mortgage lender that even suggests it as a possibility. It reeks of irresponsibility and shadyness.
[/quote]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In a market like Phx. You can buy a house $200k interest only loan . With payments of $1200 dollars a month. Make payments for 10 months equalling $12k sell the house for $300k and make yourself a handsome $88k[/quote]

You’re assuming a 50% increase in value in 10 months – and completely ignoring all the closing costs, realtor costs, etc. Don’t you find that a bit overly optimistic? Maybe that kind of increase in value actually happened in the past, but what kind of guarantee do you have it will happen again?

I do also find the kind of elation and over-optimism with the housing market truly reminiscent of the .com bust from half a decade ago. Seems people haven’t learnt anything.

The “get-rich-quick” mentality that permeates this country and has gotten us into trouble over and over and over again seems to never go away… It’s really frustrating, especially for an economist like myself…

[quote]hspder wrote:
The “get-rich-quick” mentality that permeates this country and has gotten us into trouble over and over and over again seems to never go away… It’s really frustrating, especially for an economist like myself…
[/quote]

well, as an economist, you know. problem is you’re too smart for your own good. i’m a dumbass engineer, so i’m in the same boat. we know it can’t last so we remain conservative. risk must be taken to gain the reward, and this can be done. now it seems we are so close to the burst that it’s too late to get in. but it always is, until it was. THE saving grace for this thing is that unlike tulips and .coms, at least we can live in a house.

BFG

You’re assuming a 50% increase in value in 10 months – and completely ignoring all the closing costs, realtor costs, etc. Don’t you find that a bit overly optimistic? Maybe that kind of increase in value actually happened in the past, but what kind of guarantee do you have it will happen again?

I do also find the kind of elation and over-optimism with the housing market truly reminiscent of the .com bust from half a decade ago. Seems people haven’t learnt anything.

The “get-rich-quick” mentality that permeates this country and has gotten us into trouble over and over and over again seems to never go away… It’s really frustrating, especially for an economist like myself…

The numbers I used were fiction. I as well find our economy to be some what frustrating. You could consider the inflation in the real-estate to be a bubble that will correct. Or you could say the market is correcting from a long period of inactivity.

Hmmm. I sure wish I had some investment properties to sell right now…

Bubble Debate Moves
From ‘If’ to ‘Where’
June 20, 2005 6:20 a.m.

Alan Greenspan recently described the U.S. housing market as a “collection of only loosely connected local markets” ( FRB: Testimony, Greenspan--The economic outlook--June 9, 2005 )that have no direct pricing relationships and therefore harbor little national risk of a bubble. But what if the bubbles proliferate enough to make one big foamy mess?

The most overheated local housing areas in the U.S. – 22 major metropolitan markets – now account for 35% of the value of the country’s residential real estate, such a large share of the total market that a sharp fall in their values could stall or slow national economic growth, The Wall Street Journal reports ( Booming Local Housing Markets Weigh Heavily on Overall Sector - WSJ ). That share of the national real-estate market – for just a fifth of the U.S. population – has risen quickly, according to the data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. In 2000, the 22 markets accounted for 27% of all U.S. residential real estate. In 1995, the figure was 24%. Some economists – backing Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan – say local bubbles are less worrisome than a nationwide one because they are more likely to pop individually, in response to local events, reducing the national fallout. But the latest data suggest that real-estate values in these 22 markets are getting so large that the distinction between them and the national market could become meaningless, the Journal says.

Mr. Greenspan said that exceptionally low interest rates on 10-year Treasury notes – and hence on home mortgages – “have been a major factor in the recent surge of homebuilding and home turnover.” But Fannie Mae, the largest of the government-sponsored mortgage entities, says looser lending standards are in part responsible for a rising probability that certain parts of the country could experience housing busts ( Fannie Sees Higher Odds Of Regional Housing Busts - WSJ ). In a report not yet released publicly, Fannie finds conditions in many parts of the country “mirror past conditions that preceded regional housing busts,” the Journal reports. The report adds, however, that it is impossible to know whether there is a housing bubble until after the fact.

Yale Economist Robert Shiller disagrees. In an interview with Barron’s, Mr. Shiller says the market is in the throes of a bubble of unprecedented proportions that probably will end ugly. Since his forecasts of coming trouble have been right before, Mr. Shiller’s warnings do draw attention. He argues that in the real-estate market, a price slide could begin at any time with the crescendo of what he describes simply as “talk” ( http://online.barrons.com/article_search/SB111905372884363176.html ) – “a word that he uses to cover everything from the recent Time magazine cover story on the vertiginous rise in home prices and the popularity of cable-television shows about rehabilitating and investing in real estate to the breathless newspaper stories of Miami condos being ‘flipped’ for profit a half-dozen times before construction even begins,” Barron’s says.

“Sam Zell, the nation’s biggest landlord”

Yeah, he is real credible.

During the dot com boom even NYC cab drivers had a hot stock tip.

That was a bad sign.

Now NYC cab drivers have hot real estate tips.

Not a good sign.

[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]

My parents bought our 2500 sq ft house in Northern VA for 160k roughly 13 yeras ago. It’s worth a little under 800k now. Don’t beleive me? Ask barrister what nova real-estate is like, esp the fairfax county region.

[quote]hoosierdaddy wrote:
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?

My parents bought our 2500 sq ft house in Northern VA for 160k roughly 13 yeras ago. It’s worth a little under 800k now. Don’t beleive me? Ask barrister what nova real-estate is like, esp the fairfax county region.

[/quote]

The appreciation your parents have realized will not continue and the sad fact is fairfax county is one of the few areas that is due for a correction.

Your parents should sell now and pocket the money.

[quote]
hoosierdaddy wrote:

My parents bought our 2500 sq ft house in Northern VA for 160k roughly 13 yeras ago. It’s worth a little under 800k now. Don’t beleive me? Ask barrister what nova real-estate is like, esp the fairfax county region.

Marmadogg wrote:

The appreciation your parents have realized will not continue and the sad fact is fairfax county is one of the few areas that is due for a correction.

Your parents should sell now and pocket the money.[/quote]

The market here is indeed insane, and it seems to be one of those that most people (of those who think there are local bubbles) think will experience a correction, otherwise known as a large loss of the paper value.

Given though, if your parents have held for 13 years they should still keep a good bit of their appreciation – just maybe not a lot of it from the last few years.

Really, if I were in their position I would definitely consider selling – I’d rent and I’d put the capital gain into a nicely diversified set of mutual funds.

But then again maybe they just really love their house, and want to live in it for another 15 years – in that case, I’m sure they’re ignoring all the hubbub.