|
bostonbubble.com Boston Bubble - Boston Real Estate Analysis
|
SPONSORED LINKS
Advertise on Boston Bubble
Buyer brokers and motivated
sellers, reach potential buyers.
www.bostonbubble.com
YOUR AD HERE
|
|
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website and in the
associated forums comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, expressed
or implied. You assume all risk for your own use of the information
provided as the accuracy of the information is in no way guaranteed.
As always, cross check information that you would deem useful against
multiple, reliable, independent resources. The opinions expressed
belong to the individual authors and not necessarily to other parties.
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
balor123
Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 1204
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:05 am GMT Post subject: Are Homes now "Cheap"? |
|
|
Are Homes now "Cheap"?
Just another interesting article. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:49 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, this is what I've been saying. Monthly payments in isolation may be reasonable (nationally anyway), but tunnel vision on monthly payments is a mistake (and was one of the causes of the bubble in the first place). The abnormally low interest rates which support the abnormally high reach of current monthly payments also come with a higher resale risk, which isn't reflected at all when only monthly payments are considered.
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
balor123
Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 1204
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:20 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
HGTV shows just how messed up the housing market is. Either the typical American now makes $130k or they're shopping based on monthly payment. Most of them only seem to only have 3 - 4% down as well and getting that seems like a big hurdle for them (last week I saw a couple who lived in their parent's basement for 1 year just to amass $10 - $15k. I'm seeing a lot of people who are stressed by small unexpected fees here and there. You'd think that someone buying a $400k house wouldn't have a big problem covering closing cost fees of a few thousand. That's only a few percent of the expected 20% downpayment. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:36 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Every time I'm around a television with HGTV on, I and up wondering and asking: what year was this filmed? Lending standards still seem way too loose. I do not understand how we are in a "credit crunch." There seems to be ample room for much more crunchiness.
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
balor123
Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 1204
|
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:39 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Me too. And it's usually surprisingly recent. Most of those I'm watching are now were made in 2008 or 2009. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CL Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:11 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
I in generally agree with the observation that low interest rate leads to higher reach of housing with fixed monthly payment, which in turn leads to bigger re-sale risk, if rate spike up AND buyer purchasing power remains the same.
In general, mortgage rate has 2 components - existing short term rate (controlled by Fed), a time series of forward rate (controlled by market inflation expectation). So if rate goes up, it's either because inflation expectation is spiking or because Fed is raising short rate (which is probably due to inflation).
If we expect the rate to go higher because of inflation, it's very important to understand WHY inflation goes higher. Typically, rent-equivalent being the biggest component in the inflation calculation. Second is commodity price (which is cyclical and correlate to economic growth prospect). So it is hard to imagine inflation (thus rate) spiking up when these 2 factors are spiralling down. And if inflation is indeed up, that points to rent equivalent and commodity price is up, which seems to me as economy going up, which means buyer purchasing power/confidence to purchase should go up as well.
So in short, when inflation does come back, economy probably is recovering and thus one should not expect buyer purchasing power/willingness to purhcase remains the same.
BTW, I agree typically HGTV buyers are very agressive with their finance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:26 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
While inflation may be caused by (or at least correlate with) an improving economy, it may also be caused by expansion of the monetary supply. That is my concern, given the massive expansion that has occurred recently. We had stagflation in the 1960s through 1980s, with high unemployment and high inflation, so there is recent precedent for inflation not correlating with a strong economy.
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CL Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought the problem of 70s stagflation is due to supply shock (oil) when OPEC constrained supply, not expansionary policy? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
balor123
Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 1204
|
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:58 am GMT Post subject: |
|
|
It can be caused by any event which causes a sudden increase in the cost of providing goods. The price of many goods is directly or indirectly priced by oil so a rise in the price of oil increases to some degree the price of nearly all goods. Interest rates are similar to oil - the higher the interest rate the more expensive borrowed goods become, keeping in mind that people would still be spending the same amount of money in the end on a house but forking more of it over to the lender. In a normal market, mortgage rates would be determined by inflation but not in one where mortgages are completely nationalized, as we have right now. For the moment putting the government stamp on them seems to be appeasing people, as the Fed is serving as a machine that converts mortgage backs securities into treasuries. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:37 am GMT Post subject: |
|
|
CL wrote: | Correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought the problem of 70s stagflation is due to supply shock (oil) when OPEC constrained supply, not expansionary policy? |
My point was only that the 1960s - 1980s demonstrate that inflation need not imply economic growth. I didn't mean to imply that expansionary policy is the only mechanism that can lead to inflation in a stagnant economy.
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CL Guest
|
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:13 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
balor123 - I agree with you that the housing market is increasingly socialized. US is the only developed country that is so heavily involved in housing market even before the housing crisis. After 2008, FHA got expanded, Fannie and Freddie got into government hands, Fed keeps buying MBS, direct tax credit, etc. It certainly helped arrest the housing freefall to some degree. But the unintended consequence for socialization is a disconnect between who gains (homeowners or potential homeowners, MBS holders, etc) to who loss/bear the risk (taxpayer, saver, USD holder/earner, etc).
My guess is given the huge exposure the current government (Fed, FHA, Fan and Fred) has to housing market, they simply cannot afford to let housing market die. Removing the cap on Treasury subsidy to Fannie and Freddie from 400 billion to unlimited on 12/24 is one example that they will be increasingly aggressive in preventing another housing freefall. Just think - who is the biggest loser if housing drops another 10% this year? It's not homeowner who probably still have the income to service the mortgage and generally not forced to sell. It's Fed (when MBS securities drops in value), Fannie and Freddie and state/local government (reduction in property tax). Who loses when government loses? Taxpayer. So if they succeed in propping up housing, homeowner wins, but if they fail, taxpayer will share the majority of loss. It's bad from a capitalist point of view but it has become more and more a economic guessing game than looking at fundamental analysis.
Admin - I agree with you inflation does not imply economic growth, and understanding what drives inflation is important. Tthe reason why I question expansionary policy is that expansionary policy is monetary which causes inflation (in cost of living) but also leads to asset inflation (ie. bubble) so in theory both will rise. But if it's due to oil shock, only cost of living will rise, asset price (other than oil which has to be imported) will not. That will suck big time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
balor123
Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 1204
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:31 am GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Just because they cannot afford to let the housing market die doesn't mean that they can afford to fix it either. I don't see any policies implemented that fix housing over the long term. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CL Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:46 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
What do you mean by "fixing housing" though? If you mean fixing equals letting the market force drives housing market, all the government needs to do is to withdraw policy from tax exemption to killing Fannie and Freddie, and let the invisible hand of market does it work. They can certainly do it but as you said, you cannot afford to.
My point is housing is increasingly driven by things other than fundamentals, government being the biggest wild card. It's just simply not a free market. As such, looking at housing through the narrow lens of price-to-rent and price-to-income is likely to miss the big picture (and probably frustrating when things don't add up). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:48 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
CL wrote: | As such, looking at housing through the narrow lens of price-to-rent and price-to-income is likely to miss the big picture (and probably frustrating when things don't add up). |
What else is there, though? If government manipulation is overriding the market, then there is no good metric for predicting where prices are likely to go. However, the metrics you mentioned are still useful in that they indicate where prices could go if the free market were to become the dominant factor again, willingly or not, and as such at least give you an idea of how much risk you're taking on personally. Also, the metrics won't be limited to that use forever because they will eventually reflect the new level of government intervention as these years get incorporated into the average.
This is also far from the first time that the government has increased its intervention in the housing market. It is possible that the current increase in intervention is merely a continuation of past trends, in which case the ratios may not need any catch-up time at all. Is the rate of increase in government intervention itself increasing?
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CL Guest
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:16 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Admin - to your first point, unfortunately not much. But I am not saying P/Income and P/Rent is useless. They are useful, critical even, in certain context, as with demographics, credit availability, etc.
What we do need to remember is all these ratios have assumptions embedded. They assume there is a instrinic normal level that the market will revert to. How to determine the "normal" level is the tricky part. A lot of people think 1. the market should return to a magic number (think in stock market, the P/E of 15, in housing, P/Income of 3), or 2. the market should return to historical level. First method is arbitrary and second method assume market norm as stationary. So both have flaws. Still useful, but not a golden rule, esp for short term price movement.
A bit of my personal view - I hate housing as an investment asset class. Price discovery too slow, opaque and transaction cost way too high. So instead, I would approach it from an consumer perspective, and it makes more sense to -
1. Acknowledge future house price (as with all asset price) is almost impossible to predict precisely
2. Buy attributes that don't depreciate (i.e. new kitchen cabinets depreciates, a good school system and close to public transportation don't)
3. Using fundamental analysis NOT to time the entry point or predict short term price movement (like 1-2 years) but to avoid really stupid mistake (like buying when the market is very obviously out of whack),
4. Lengthen your time horizon and ride out short term price movement.
Your second point - I think what government trying hard to do is to establish a floor. So I think government action is largely reactionary, and whenever there is a large price freefall, government will do whatever it can to arrest it. The larger the fall, the more agressive it becomes. As such, I think it takes the 15%-20%drop out of the picture. So the rate of government intervention is correlated with how sharp the "pain" it has to endure.
[/quote] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Forum posts are owned by the original posters.
Forum boards are Copyright 2005 - present, bostonbubble.com.
Privacy policy in effect.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|