Our result for the first two months of our North American Housing Price Index is a drop of 1.36%. We've gotten a bit of month-to-month volatility, but hopefully that will smooth out as we go along.
We're noticing more properties coming to market in some locales. It will be telling to see if the market can absorb the supply, or if it will have - as we expect - a depressing effect on prices.
Tune in next month for our update.
Showing posts with label house value. Show all posts
Showing posts with label house value. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Las Vegas, NV: Bellweather of Doom
Our co-writer made a post a while back, laying out a brief case for the collapse of present valuations of American housing stock. He forecasted (and still forecasts) an estimated 87% drop in value for desirable, non-redundant living space, along with almost every mortgaged houseowner ending up 'under water.'
According to the basic number we've seen bandied about, approximately two-thirds of all houseowners have mortgages. We can surmise, without too much imagination required, that if house prices do indeed plummet 87% or so, almost all of these mortgaged houseowners will be 'under water,' and will likely default on their debt. This will of course create an enormous glut on the real estate market, and devastate the debt-addicted banking system of the United States, and indeed the world.
Our co-writer is now partly vindicated, by the original Icon of Sin: Las Vegas, Nevada. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, a study shows that 67.2% of all homes in Las Vegas have "negative equity;" or, in the common tongue, the owners owe more on their mortgage than the house is presently valued. We point out that 67.2% is right around two-thirds of all houses (and thus virtually every owner with a mortgage is 'under water'); Las Vegas is now the bellweather of the United States housing collapse.
It is difficult - if not impossible - to put a time-frame on this collapse, but we are confident that said collapse is both in progress, and cannot be halted in real terms. However, the Federal Reserve's attempts to rekindle inflation will likely succeed, and when that day comes some of these 'under water' houseowners will at least have the succor of having their nominal property values resume an upwards march. That will be a phyrric victory, but we suspect that realisation will take some time to dawn on the average American citizen.
According to the basic number we've seen bandied about, approximately two-thirds of all houseowners have mortgages. We can surmise, without too much imagination required, that if house prices do indeed plummet 87% or so, almost all of these mortgaged houseowners will be 'under water,' and will likely default on their debt. This will of course create an enormous glut on the real estate market, and devastate the debt-addicted banking system of the United States, and indeed the world.
Our co-writer is now partly vindicated, by the original Icon of Sin: Las Vegas, Nevada. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, a study shows that 67.2% of all homes in Las Vegas have "negative equity;" or, in the common tongue, the owners owe more on their mortgage than the house is presently valued. We point out that 67.2% is right around two-thirds of all houses (and thus virtually every owner with a mortgage is 'under water'); Las Vegas is now the bellweather of the United States housing collapse.
It is difficult - if not impossible - to put a time-frame on this collapse, but we are confident that said collapse is both in progress, and cannot be halted in real terms. However, the Federal Reserve's attempts to rekindle inflation will likely succeed, and when that day comes some of these 'under water' houseowners will at least have the succor of having their nominal property values resume an upwards march. That will be a phyrric victory, but we suspect that realisation will take some time to dawn on the average American citizen.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
What is the Significance of $1,000 Houses?
There was a recent report on CNN about how there are lots of listings for low-priced houses in places such as Cleveland, Detroit, and Indianapolis. The report admitted that these houses need work - say $20,000 worth - to make them livable, but they represent a golden opportunity to acquire real estate on the cheap.
Markets are generally pretty adept at conveying information. The first thing that comes to mind is that livable houses in these places aren't worth $21,000. If they were, the cheap houses would have all been snapped up.
One of the houses is mentioned as last having been sold at $70,000. Put another way, this means the value has declined from $70,000 to less than $20,000, or down about 70%. We believe that this is not an exceptional decline, but a fairly representative one.
The official numbers don't show this pervasive catastrophe yet because most owners who don't have an urgent need to sell, aren't selling. They are holding out for price recovery, and in their minds maintaining an inflated valuation.
There is a large, yet difficult-to-measure, overhang of houses whose owners imagine themselves patient, yet are probably just living in the past. Unable to let go of perceptual wealth, they can't sell the buildings for 'less than they are worth'.
This capital immobility is hurting the economy in at least two ways. First, it is keeping people stuck in place. Household mobility in the USA is at an all-time low. This hampers people's ability to relocate to better opportunities. Second, it is tying up capital in non-productive assets. Empty houses contribute very little to an economy. If sold, they could be inhabited, and thus a source of income - either landlord's rent, or owner's equivalent rent.
In time, most of the overhang will come to market and clear at the new equilibrium level. The rest will slowly rot in place, their deluded owners basking in their pride of ownership of an asset that is too valuable to sell at the market price.
Markets are generally pretty adept at conveying information. The first thing that comes to mind is that livable houses in these places aren't worth $21,000. If they were, the cheap houses would have all been snapped up.
One of the houses is mentioned as last having been sold at $70,000. Put another way, this means the value has declined from $70,000 to less than $20,000, or down about 70%. We believe that this is not an exceptional decline, but a fairly representative one.
The official numbers don't show this pervasive catastrophe yet because most owners who don't have an urgent need to sell, aren't selling. They are holding out for price recovery, and in their minds maintaining an inflated valuation.
There is a large, yet difficult-to-measure, overhang of houses whose owners imagine themselves patient, yet are probably just living in the past. Unable to let go of perceptual wealth, they can't sell the buildings for 'less than they are worth'.
This capital immobility is hurting the economy in at least two ways. First, it is keeping people stuck in place. Household mobility in the USA is at an all-time low. This hampers people's ability to relocate to better opportunities. Second, it is tying up capital in non-productive assets. Empty houses contribute very little to an economy. If sold, they could be inhabited, and thus a source of income - either landlord's rent, or owner's equivalent rent.
In time, most of the overhang will come to market and clear at the new equilibrium level. The rest will slowly rot in place, their deluded owners basking in their pride of ownership of an asset that is too valuable to sell at the market price.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Your Single Best Investment
The notion that housing is an investment certainly has a lot of egg on its face these days. But behind every bubble, is a grain of truth. The truth behind the housing bubble is that affordable, paid-for, owner-occupied housing in reasonable repair is an excellent investment for many reasons.
What was lost sight of in the recent bubble was the affordable part, and the paid-for part. The system's idea of making housing affordable was to wildly dole out loans no matter how large, and uncovered by income.
The simplest rule-of-thumb for defining what is affordable is the house value should be no more than twice the household income. This is a figure that doesn't get much air time. More typical multipliers are higher. They are propogated by bankers (who want people to borrow money) and real estate agents (who want higher commissions).
People often buy houses to live in at an affordable multiple, but then hang on when market-based appreciation takes the multiple higher. This seems innocent enough, but is actually a mistake. The primary reason is the cost of property taxes which, in most places, is proportional to market value. The cost of both insurance and repairs typically rise to some extent with market value as well.
If you live in an area where you can't find a decent house in a decent neighbourhood for twice your income (or less), move to an area where such houses abound or accept that you will be a renter. It is as simple as that. Don't compromise the quality of the house or the neighbourhood to find a house to buy in an expensive area.
The paid-for part is very important. It is not an easy thing for renters to save up two years of income to buy a house. Mortgages are indeed a great convenience when used wisely; but absolute poison if abused. Once taken out, the mortgage should be paid as quickly as possible. The indebted owner should consider a severe austerity until the mortgage is extinguished - perhaps applying as much as half the household income towards it. This will pay off a mortgage on an affordable house in just a few years.
And now to the reasonable-repair part. There are two ways of turning your house into a money-pit. One is buying a house with excessive deferred maintenance, such as the "fixer-upper" that should have been torn down or the house that "just needs a new roof." A professional inspection before purchase may save a world of hurt after the purchase. Never buy serious problems, unless you are a skilled construction worker, or the price is low enough that you can perform the repairs within the overall purchase budget.
The second way to turn your house into a money pit is to over-maintain it. Your house is not a piece of precision military machinery, so it does not need to always be in tip-top shape. A little shabby is not a bad condition for a house to be in. Let the municipality tell you when you need to re-side.
The chief advantage of owning the house you live in is that you have avoided paying for two significant costs: the bank and landlord's profit on renting to you; and the taxes on the money you would need to earn to cover said profit. As an investment, the owner-occupied house has the benefit of a guaranteed customer and a return more certain than every other investment.
The affordable, paid-for, owner-occupied house in reasonable repair is a great benefit to households, and ultimately to society as a whole. This latter benefit is perhaps at the core of the good intention behind the out-of-control promotion of 'home ownership' at all costs - the paver that led the world to a bit of economic Hell.
What was lost sight of in the recent bubble was the affordable part, and the paid-for part. The system's idea of making housing affordable was to wildly dole out loans no matter how large, and uncovered by income.
The simplest rule-of-thumb for defining what is affordable is the house value should be no more than twice the household income. This is a figure that doesn't get much air time. More typical multipliers are higher. They are propogated by bankers (who want people to borrow money) and real estate agents (who want higher commissions).
People often buy houses to live in at an affordable multiple, but then hang on when market-based appreciation takes the multiple higher. This seems innocent enough, but is actually a mistake. The primary reason is the cost of property taxes which, in most places, is proportional to market value. The cost of both insurance and repairs typically rise to some extent with market value as well.
If you live in an area where you can't find a decent house in a decent neighbourhood for twice your income (or less), move to an area where such houses abound or accept that you will be a renter. It is as simple as that. Don't compromise the quality of the house or the neighbourhood to find a house to buy in an expensive area.
The paid-for part is very important. It is not an easy thing for renters to save up two years of income to buy a house. Mortgages are indeed a great convenience when used wisely; but absolute poison if abused. Once taken out, the mortgage should be paid as quickly as possible. The indebted owner should consider a severe austerity until the mortgage is extinguished - perhaps applying as much as half the household income towards it. This will pay off a mortgage on an affordable house in just a few years.
And now to the reasonable-repair part. There are two ways of turning your house into a money-pit. One is buying a house with excessive deferred maintenance, such as the "fixer-upper" that should have been torn down or the house that "just needs a new roof." A professional inspection before purchase may save a world of hurt after the purchase. Never buy serious problems, unless you are a skilled construction worker, or the price is low enough that you can perform the repairs within the overall purchase budget.
The second way to turn your house into a money pit is to over-maintain it. Your house is not a piece of precision military machinery, so it does not need to always be in tip-top shape. A little shabby is not a bad condition for a house to be in. Let the municipality tell you when you need to re-side.
The chief advantage of owning the house you live in is that you have avoided paying for two significant costs: the bank and landlord's profit on renting to you; and the taxes on the money you would need to earn to cover said profit. As an investment, the owner-occupied house has the benefit of a guaranteed customer and a return more certain than every other investment.
The affordable, paid-for, owner-occupied house in reasonable repair is a great benefit to households, and ultimately to society as a whole. This latter benefit is perhaps at the core of the good intention behind the out-of-control promotion of 'home ownership' at all costs - the paver that led the world to a bit of economic Hell.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Pay Now or Forever Hold Your Peace
In previous posts, we and our co-writer have argued that housing values will make a serious face-plant on the road ahead (see this article, and this one as well). Put concisely, just about any mortgaged house in the United States, and indeed the world, will end up 'under water' in the near term (i.e. the mortgage is for more than the house is 'worth').
We turn at this point to the Washington Post, which has an article about Ms. Elizabeth Small. Although the article does not make it clear, she's probably worth around $1.5 million or so... until recently, that is. Now, she has lost $1 million since 2000, including $200,000 since April 2008. She can no longer afford to pay her mortgage payments and living expenses off of her investment income, and Social Security -- surprise! -- doesn't provide all that much security, after all.
To defend her dwindling capital base, she reported she was looking into certificates of deposit, or bonds. Last we checked, both those 'investments' were paying 0%... Her course of action -- which quoted professional money managers didn't even think to recommend -- should be to either pay off her mortgage, or walk away from her house. Ms. Small, we think, is in a situation similar to other people: she's not taking the best step of all, which is to pay off debt, or default.
We suspect the monetary powers-that-be will attempt to rescue people like Ms. Small with hyperinflation. Hyperinflation will reduce the value of the mortgage payments (or perhaps even the mortgage itself) to meaninglessness; say, a caramel macchiato, with an extra shot of espresso. However, the benefits of the debauch of the currency will only accrue to those who can maintain their income, and have it go up roughly in lockstep with the rate of inflation. Needless to say, it would be a Pyrrhic victory to those few who pull it off. We regret to inform Ms. Small that she will not be one of them.
We turn at this point to the Washington Post, which has an article about Ms. Elizabeth Small. Although the article does not make it clear, she's probably worth around $1.5 million or so... until recently, that is. Now, she has lost $1 million since 2000, including $200,000 since April 2008. She can no longer afford to pay her mortgage payments and living expenses off of her investment income, and Social Security -- surprise! -- doesn't provide all that much security, after all.
To defend her dwindling capital base, she reported she was looking into certificates of deposit, or bonds. Last we checked, both those 'investments' were paying 0%... Her course of action -- which quoted professional money managers didn't even think to recommend -- should be to either pay off her mortgage, or walk away from her house. Ms. Small, we think, is in a situation similar to other people: she's not taking the best step of all, which is to pay off debt, or default.
We suspect the monetary powers-that-be will attempt to rescue people like Ms. Small with hyperinflation. Hyperinflation will reduce the value of the mortgage payments (or perhaps even the mortgage itself) to meaninglessness; say, a caramel macchiato, with an extra shot of espresso. However, the benefits of the debauch of the currency will only accrue to those who can maintain their income, and have it go up roughly in lockstep with the rate of inflation. Needless to say, it would be a Pyrrhic victory to those few who pull it off. We regret to inform Ms. Small that she will not be one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
