 |
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: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:56 pm GMT Post subject: Rent prices |
|
|
As the media was reporting, rent prices were very high this year. 2br apartments in my complex were renting for about $2500/mo only 2 weeks ago - the highest that I've seen since 2005 (lowest being $1500/mo). I'm currently paying just under $2000/mo so it would still have been a very large jump for me and I was surprised that inflation wasn't coming in higher as a result of the rent increases. Maybe because they're using "mortgage equivalent rent" instead? Anyway, the prices dropped $200/mo in the last two weeks so while there were reports that high rents were driving the home market, it looks like it may not last. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
CL Guest
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:55 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Another news that is interesting is Fed move to buy longer dated Treasury and sell shorter dated Treasury - that should be lead to direct downward pressure on mortgage rate (most correlated with 10 yr Treasury).
My guess is once Fed controls long rate, there will be substantial political pressure if Fed let it rise too quickly to the extent it hurts the housing market, which means the "sharp interest rate rise leading to sharp house price drop" thesis may no longer be valid.
30 year mortgage at around 4%, which for $2000 rent means 419000 mortgage principle. Add another 100-150K in downpayment saved, you can buy a very decent home in good district that you don't need to trade up/down for a long long time (say 20-30 years). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:18 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
balor123 wrote: | As the media was reporting, rent prices were very high this year. 2br apartments in my complex were renting for about $2500/mo only 2 weeks ago - the highest that I've seen since 2005 (lowest being $1500/mo). I'm currently paying just under $2000/mo so it would still have been a very large jump for me and I was surprised that inflation wasn't coming in higher as a result of the rent increases. Maybe because they're using "mortgage equivalent rent" instead? Anyway, the prices dropped $200/mo in the last two weeks so while there were reports that high rents were driving the home market, it looks like it may not last. |
Just anecdotally, I also found the rental market to be exceptionally tight for the September 1st time frame. My (previous) landlord was turning over the entire building, consisting of 3 apartments in Davis Square, and the number of respondents was insane. Everything went practically instantly.
The September inflation numbers aren't out yet, so it's going to be a little while before we see a bump, provided it shows up as you and I are both apparently expecting. August rent for the Boston MSA was only up 1.41% YOY, according to The BLS. That's just the actual primary residence rent, not the owners' equivalent rent, which may have been what you were thinking of (there is no mortgage equivalent rent in the BLS CPIs).
CL wrote: | Another news that is interesting is Fed move to buy longer dated Treasury and sell shorter dated Treasury - that should be lead to direct downward pressure on mortgage rate (most correlated with 10 yr Treasury).
My guess is once Fed controls long rate, there will be substantial political pressure if Fed let it rise too quickly to the extent it hurts the housing market, which means the "sharp interest rate rise leading to sharp house price drop" thesis may no longer be valid.
|
I think correlation is the operative word there - it's not causation. That correlation comes from the long term history where The Fed did not manipulate long term rates. I don't think it's safe to assume that past correlations will hold when the one variable is now being set differently than before. I'd also expect that the correlation that truly matters is between mortgage rates and inflation. While I don't necessarily think that a return to high inflation is the most likely scenario, I do believe that it's likely enough to still present a serious downside risk to buying now.
CL wrote: |
30 year mortgage at around 4%, which for $2000 rent means 419000 mortgage principle. Add another 100-150K in downpayment saved, you can buy a very decent home in good district that you don't need to trade up/down for a long long time (say 20-30 years). |
There are many other costs to buying than just your mortgage payment. Property taxes and maintenance are big ones, as are transaction costs if you stay there around the average of 7 years. If you don't need to trade up/down for a long time, that helps spread out the transaction costs at least, but from a practicality standpoint it may not be possible for most people to predict how their family and job situations will evolve over the next 20 years. I barely have visibility into the next 20 months, myself.
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
john p
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820
|
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:34 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
I read a great article recently in Bloomberg about the context of when the US closed the Gold window during Nixon's Administration and we got off the gold standard. What it seemed to be about was how politicians used the Federal Reserve to to create favorable short term bubbles to give them a lift and get them reelected. No politician wanted to be around during the bust or the correction so they would invent new stimulating monetary policy.
They've been doing this for decades. There hasn't been a "normal" time period.
Administration after administration new rules would undermine our economy. Bush gets dealt 9/11 at the time we're feeling the correction of the Stock Market Bubble so he offers a massive tax cut which costs over $1 Trillion in revenue. At the time it creates a stimulus, but due to the spending on the Wars and the growth of government the deficit starts to swell to almost $1/2 Trillion. Obama gets Stimulus, QE1 and QE2, monkeys with the down payments on housing, etc. There isn't much at this point that is available to Obama and he is feeling the corrections of tons of prior bubbles. The problem was that he wasn't a bubble fighter who wanted to get on some rational play by the rules society. He was a bubble, he was that start up that had no track record that everyone invested in. He was Solyndra, that solar company with great aspirations without a business plan or a viable market. Now, his guys are looking for the new bubble trick, they're even calling things "Twists". He's certainly causing uncertainty and he's certainly trying to help out Unions, public workers (his base), but what politician hasn't?
I think the rental market today reflects uncertainty. With all the mergers and acquisitions and the monkeying of government and the problems in Europe, many feel powerless, unmoored without wind hoping a random cannonball doesn't hit them. Unemployment is absolutely the most important thing to watch. People are renting because they, as admin said, can't see a stable future. So what do you do? Do you buy a house with a 30 year mortgage or do you rent?
Here is a great white paper on political economic cycles
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~franzese/FranzeseJusko.EPBC.OxfHndbk.chap30.pdf
Think about it, there are PhD's who have focused on the integration of political science and economics; about the manipulation of message, coalition building and policy.
Too bad these guys weren't focused on fundamentals which was a lot more sustainable than playing these little games.
The deeper my research goes back the more an more I'm liking this guy Ron Paul. My current concerns with him is although most of what he says is right, how abruptly will he make some of these necessary changes and although the direction may be right, will the abruptness be too damaging? I guess my thinking is the basis for why so many generations have chosen to make the step in the wrong direction because they were afraid of change?
Bottom line is, we can all sit here and try to figure out the forces acting upon us or we can choose to become a force ourselves. I think the best course of action for young people is to become competent and successful in a growing field so you have a foundation of fundamental under you. Even if you score a great house, without the stable job you could even lose that.
I remember when I took Kung Fu, we had this kid who could whip this chain with a steel weight at the end of it all around like a blur. If this kid hit himself he could have easily lost an eye or ear; it was pretty serious but the kid was kind of mental and talented. Anyway, I told my sifu that I had absolutely zero interest in that and was it ok to just focus on the basics. He said of course, but I thought that a guy who could do that thing certainly would be also building his base of skills because by choosing to tackle something hard sometimes helps build a foundation if broken down and approached properly.
I think you just need to be aware of any action response assumptions you may have, kind of like "if I buy this girl flowers she will love me", or if I spend a lot of time reading this or that, I'll be able to pick winners, or if I get this degree I will be rich, etc. Sometimes certain things work for some people and other times they don't for others. I always found the "Immune Towns" conversation interesting. Posters have come and gone but that is a common theme. Kids pull their head out of the sand after doing everything their parents and teachers and society told them to do and they see their prize out of reach and ask what the hell happened. They keep pumping these kids out of these schools in the area and sometimes things work out for them and others end up renting in Somerville for decades. The kid renting in Somerville might get the last laugh, but maybe the kid who went to Bridgewater State who relocated to North Carolina or Kentucky?
Just like bubble and bust cycles, so too are value cycles. My grandparents got married during the peak of the Great Depression. Obviously, they had a different set of values as say the "Me Generation". My parents were Korea War era. Funny how the Roaring 20's people's kids were post WWII and saw that bubble, who's kids saw the 80's bubble, who's kids saw the bubble of 2000. Kids see their parents and their parents friends successes and failures and those are the impressions they have to flow their lives into. Understanding how many people are programmed in each way will help you better understand the behavior.
Look at people today. They say Obama isn't dumb; he went to Harvard, was on the Law Review, head of the Law Review.... He did what academia said and that's not bringing the results, what's going on?
We either find a sobering moment of clarity or we'll find the next form of bubblemaking which I believe would be serious inflation. I think that Obama, if reelected will side with the debtors not the creditors and like Jimmy Carter will create inflation (which may be the right thing to do... read Ezra Klein on this..). I do think that if he doesn't get elected we'll have to be the military empire because our own house is not working.
I guess this is why I'm really liking Ron Paul. I just wonder if we can handle the truth? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:20 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
john p wrote: | I think the best course of action for young people is to become competent and successful in a growing field so you have a foundation of fundamental under you. Even if you score a great house, without the stable job you could even lose that. |
What job is stable? I see this as one of those pieces of advice, like you mentioned, that may have worked well for people in the past but which is difficult, if not impossible, to apply correctly in the context we're in now. The pace of change driven by technological innovation has increased to the point that you cannot predict what careers will be growing or at least stable over the entire course of your career, if you are starting out now.
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mpr
Joined: 06 Jun 2009 Posts: 344
|
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:18 am GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Johnp,
I think you will find this book interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867
It gets at some of the issues you are thinking about, especially the nature of debt and how it has traditionally related to social contracts etc. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mpr
Joined: 06 Jun 2009 Posts: 344
|
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:28 am GMT Post subject: |
|
|
admin wrote: |
I think correlation is the operative word there - it's not causation. That correlation comes from the long term history where The Fed did not manipulate long term rates. I don't think it's safe to assume that past correlations will hold when the one variable is now being set differently than before. I'd also expect that the correlation that truly matters is between mortgage rates and inflation. While I don't necessarily think that a return to high inflation is the most likely scenario, I do believe that it's likely enough to still present a serious downside risk to buying now.
- admin |
Call it what you will, but there is no reason this correlation is going to break down in a serious way. If the spread widened too far then investors would have an incentive to switch out of treasuries and into agencies. (so it is causation in some sense).
Now its true that since different investors have slightly different maturity/interest risk preferences and the 10 year tsy and 30 year agency are not perfect substitutes, if the Fed targets treasuries that will make the spread a little bit wider, all else being equal. But that should be a relatively minor effect.
If you believe that interest rates are as low as they are going to go, then one could argue that now, more than ever, the spread should be small because the future refinancing risk in the agencies is lower than usual. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:48 am GMT Post subject: |
|
|
mpr wrote: |
Call it what you will, but there is no reason this correlation is going to break down in a serious way. If the spread widened too far then investors would have an incentive to switch out of treasuries and into agencies. (so it is causation in some sense).
|
But those aren't the only choices. I'd personally consider other (foreign) sovereign debt a better substitute for Treasuries than agencies, given the special nature of the debt. Current spreads between Treasuries and other investments are a function of many things including limited subsets of investors' utility curves. My point is that spreads will not necessarily be the same in other sections of the utility curves and manipulating Treasury yields far enough will change the portions of the utility curves that are applicable. Put another way, investors may not necessarily increase their holdings in agency debt in proportion to what they hold now when attempting to replace unsatisfactorily low yielding Treasuries.
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kaidran
Joined: 17 Mar 2010 Posts: 289
|
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:28 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Hey John, any comment on the media ignoring Ron Paul? The only commentary I've seen on it has come from Jon Stewart? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
john p
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820
|
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:35 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Admin:
If I worked in a turbulent field, I'd rent for sure, maintain a decent emergency fund and try to do side projects or work on a start up with my extra time hoping to eventually get a big payout, this way you could put a bigger amount down where your mortgage was comperable to rent and you could absorb a reasonable drop in house prices. Also, I would stay away from any homes that needed work because you won't want self created hardships....
MPR:
I went to the Downtown Crossing Borders to buy that book and the store is totally closed; sign of the times. Maybe they'll have it on Kindle?
Kadrian:
I am not sure why the media isn't covering Ron Paul. I loved the John Stewart piece on him. Robert Kennedy said:
Quote: | Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change. |
Voting for Ron Paul is like admitting you like something uncool. So many people have assassinated his character and said that he is a nut that you would face scrutiny of many elite card carrying members of both parties.
I like that he takes on the Neoconservatives. Here's an example as to why he is a threat to the power elite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MzdYEU0fig&feature=related |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mpr
Joined: 06 Jun 2009 Posts: 344
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:05 am GMT Post subject: |
|
|
admin wrote: | I'd personally consider other (foreign) sovereign debt a better substitute for Treasuries than agencies, given the special nature of the debt.
- admin |
I'd probably have to disagree with you there, but before I explain why, can you explain precisely what you mean by it being a 'better substitute'. Better by what measure ?
If the measure of a good substitute is that the two securities behave in a similar way, or at least that the difference is relatively predictable, then I disagree with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
balor123
Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 1204
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:30 am GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Just an update, my complex has upped the referral bonus for new residents through Oct 1. I'm thinking that they predict rent prices will drop, at least with the coming winter, and they want to lock in high prices now. I've never seen them do this before in the 5 years that I've lived here. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:56 am GMT Post subject: |
|
|
mpr wrote: |
I'd probably have to disagree with you there, but before I explain why, can you explain precisely what you mean by it being a 'better substitute'. Better by what measure ?
|
What I had in mind was that main selling point of Treasuries (for me) is that they are the primary form of debt issued by the government and probably what the government would be least likely to default on. I'd expect the risk of default to be lower for a few other foreign governments' equivalent vehicles than for US agency debt.
In that vein, if the Treasuries are being bought by foreign governments as a reserve currency and they were to start searching for a substitute to cultivate, I strongly suspect that they would look at other countries' sovereign debt (or internal investment) and probably not even consider US agency debt.
- admin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mpr
Joined: 06 Jun 2009 Posts: 344
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:56 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
admin wrote: |
What I had in mind was that main selling point of Treasuries (for me) is that they are the primary form of debt issued by the government and probably what the government would be least likely to default on. I'd expect the risk of default to be lower for a few other foreign governments' equivalent vehicles than for US agency debt.
- admin |
Ok. Well, one can agree or disagree with the analysis of the risk of agencies. What I don't buy is that the *perceptions* of this risk should change compared to historical levels, especially when the government guarantee of agencies is much more explicit. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 1826 Location: Greater Boston
|
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:59 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
mpr wrote: |
Ok. Well, one can agree or disagree with the analysis of the risk of agencies. What I don't buy is that the *perceptions* of this risk should change compared to historical levels, especially when the government guarantee of agencies is much more explicit. |
I don't think that individual perceptions need to change for the spreads to change. Given enough quantitative easing, The Fed would effectively be removing Treasuries as an investment option for others. (I'm not saying we are at this point, I'm just pointing out the limit case to demonstrate that The Fed's power to manipulate other rates is not unlimited.) The perception of agency risk, among other preferences, for those who previously would have bought Treasuries is what would matter in setting the new spreads afterward. Their preferences are unknown, except that we know that they did not consider the previous spread wide enough to justify the risk. The previous prices and spread were set on the margin by those who actually were willing to buy - this does not tell you the price at which additional buyers would enter the market, which is what you would need. In the case of foreign governments in need of a reserve currency, I don't think it's plausible that they would substitute agency debt for Treasuries regardless of the spread.
- admin |
|
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
|