Is anyone aware of an inverse correlation between a housing bubble of massive proportions popping and subsequently rising rents?
My thinking goes something like this: after all the suckers who go bankrupt lose their houses and are back in the rental market, they will drive vacancy rates in typical rental properties lower (supply and demand).
*Or* do all those illegal in-law suites all over the place absorb a lot of those ex-property owners, and do all those empty houses now rented after foreclosure or whatever depress the market?
As house prices go down over several years (by not appreciating or actually coming down, whatever), and rent gets more expensive (lower vacancy rates), these same people will start to think about the money they are wasting renting and thinking about buying again, and the cycle begins anew.
My vote - I have a feeling rents will be going up as housing prices go down.
« First « Previous Viewing Comments 54-93 of 93 Last » See most liked comments
FollowBefriend1 threads973 comments
I love knowing that some on this blog will never get that disgusting image to separate with my name for the rest of eternity.
Agreed--that could be freakish!
Time to clear the mind....visualize Rob Ross, trapped in a Francis Bacon painting...for all eternity.
FollowBefriend23 threads2,038 comments surfer-x's website
Jack, de-nile is not just a river egypt
FollowBefriend25 threads1,690 comments SQT15's website
I love that Peter P can find food to like in any culture. A true renaissance man.
de-nile is not just a river egypt
Wow, musant tipe wile intocicated.
Rent normally rise while prices decline.
Rents tend to become weaker as the market nears the peak because renters shift to being buyers, leaving a weak demand for rentals and causing stronger demand for purchasing. Rents are also weak shortly after the peak as the decline starts and the glut is still present. However, before long, the growing renter population causes a rental shortage to develop and rent increases resume their long term trend, going up as home prices decline. In tighter markets rents tend to go up at all, or nearly all times in the cycle.
Because new supply tends to come slowly in response to established demand, there is a lag in the supply adjustment. This leaves the market to be lead and driven by demand shifts.
FollowBefriend3 threads310 comments tsusiat's website
I've got a cool pair of wrap around Ray-Bans. They're so old, a boomer could have worn them in his youth...
Instead of “The Screaming Pope”, perhaps “The Screaming Bob”?
LOL...I'd like to see that. Maybe I'll photoshop that, but in respect to Bacon, I'll skip.
Interesting Zephyr, and it makes sense, up to a point.
But in a place like the BA, where there is not a lot of new construction, isn't it all a wash?
Doesn't the home that houses the owner still have to house someone, even if the owner switches to being a renter? And visa versa? Ah, I see now. It is not exactly that easy to convert SFH to rental property and especially not that easy to convert apartments to condos.
It is funny to watch you guys predict inflation one week, then falling prices for everything the next. Don't you think that if the new Fed floods the market with dollars, which we all think he has to in order to inflate the US government out of its debt load, that rents won't go up as well?
I don't see a recession in our future, so much as a whiff of stagflation. Maybe not 15% a year Carter style stagflation but 7-8% easily, by the end of Dubya's term.
And attendant rent increases.
Except in places that are overbuilt like Las Vegas, which should see a collapse in both home and rental prices.
Which will bring in a flood of people looking for a cheap place to live, laying the seeds for the next boom.
Well, please noone shoot me for going off topic here ;)
Anyone who's tracking inventory notice a surge today? A few comments on ben's blog from people in non-bay area markets (dunno where, exactly) mentioned this. Then, when I came home and updated my spreadsheets for santa clara county & south san jose areas, I saw a big jump as well (biggest 1 day jump in 40 days). I think we are still seeing sellers' reactions to the relatively recent spike in RE bubble news (not to mention FED comments, interest rates, etc.)...as in, once someone changes plans & decides to sell sooner rather than later, it takes a little time to bring the property to market.
Anyways, be on the lookout for possibly even more open house signs this weekend.
FollowBefriend1 threads3,248 comments
Hard to say whether rent will be up or down. Let me try to take a stab.
I think the lower-end condo/apartments/townhomes will see a hike, but the higher-end will see a decline. Here is the reasoning. Employment will definitely be affected, so will the consumer confidence when the RE bubble pops. So the market will see more renters, but renters who refuse to spend too much on their residence. They may share homes, live with parents, instead of going for a larger, nicer apartment. So the lower-end apartments will have more renter demand while the mid-to-higher end will see a decline.
So the people who are buying up really run-down apartments and doing some basic cosmetic work to make the rooms look tidier and cleaner will do quite well. The individual landlords who plan to rent out their million dollar Mcmansions will have a very hard time achieving a meaningful rent.
For the BA, I believe anything under 1,200 a month will see a rent hike. Anything above 2,0000 will see no takers. 1,200-2,000 will be sort of be stagnant.
lol I would never rent anything for 2,0000
Sound like good reasoning to me, ownerocc.
My big question is the % of property owners who can afford to rent at lower prices, compared to the (recently increased) % of owners who are cashflow negative & will be puting more aggressive upward pressure on rental rates. I guess this depends on the degree of recent speculative purchasing...which is far less in the immediate bay area compared to satellites (i.e. modesto, stockton). All of this of course has to be put in the proper context of supply/demand being the primary driving force.
I have been tracking an obscure part of LG, the LG Mountains for about 6 months. I chose this location because I know that part well, and believe it is a quite marginal area where the effect of boom and bust will be very apparent.
It is a mountainous area clsoe to Loma Prieta (ring a bell?) where residents have to get private/mutual water, propane gas and rely on septic tanks. It is a community for people who REALLY want to live in the mountains and tough it out. For many years, that part of LG sees a median price at around 50-60% of what LG can achieve in general, until this recent boom, it went up to almost at par with the rest of LG, well, typical of any bubble when it is at the top. Morever, properties in LG mountains start to market themselves as INVESTMENT properties, yearight, like a normal renter is really interested in getting stranded in winter by falling trees and driving in the thick fog every night on barely paved roads.
So since about 2 months ago, the properties I have been tracking are either re-listed at >50,000 less, or just priced at a cut without relisting, but the word *reduction* seldom appeared in the flyer. For 1M+ properties, the typical reduction is 150,000, one of them was already marked down by 300,000 from 1.5M. For sub 1M properties, the reduction is around 50,000 to 100,000. Many of them have been sitting on the market for more than 5 months, and some of them have already gone through two price cuts.
I believe the bubble pop has already started. Such an area-wide price reduction may not be apparent in some blue-ribbon areas, but is definitely becoming an undeniable trend in some less-than-stellar areas.
I keep seeing the same damn craftsman mansion on craigslist in LG hills...months & months & months. I never bothered to track the ask price...but it's been there since...January or something? I also kept seeing the same damn $389K shack in SC mountains with something like an acre of land on it...ugly brick red thing...yeah, I think they called it an "investment property", too. These propertie may gone now...or maybe I just don't notice them anymore. But for sure the high end around here is stinking it up. Also, I drive down this one street, can't remember the name (1 block east of N.SC ave) from LG blvd, & I keep seeing the same for sale signs over the course of weeks...mos now maybe?
FollowBefriend (4)117 threads17,655 comments Premium
People’s behavior gets REALLY ugly when when it gets that bad, and the upcoming depression just may.
No need to worry. Ben "Helicopter Drop" Bernanke will make sure that it does not get REALLY ugly.
It might technically still be legal for High Treason. Any UK-law types know for sure?
Wow. Braveheart indeed.
It is a mountainous area clsoe to Loma Prieta (ring a bell?) where residents have to get private/mutual water, propane gas and rely on septic tanks. It is a community for people who REALLY want to live in the mountains and tough it out.
Does it have mountain people like in Deliverance?
I love that Peter P can find food to like in any culture. A true renaissance man.
To be frank, I have yet to develop a taste for Ethiopian food.
Does it have mountain people like in Deliverance?
It is much more toned down from Deliverance of course. But according to my friend living up there, you have electricity outage every other week in the winter months, roads blocked every month during the rainy season, and beasts of all kinds howling all night. And, it is freezing cold up there at night around-the-year. Residents do need shot guns to fend off wild animals.
Don't get me wrong, I love the mountain life, there are lots of upsides that come with it, the tranquility, the scenery, the fresh air, the acreage (although mostly on steep slopes making it quite unusable), etc. But it is not for most people, and definitely not at the current price level. For one, the wife may pull her hair out dealing with all the inconvenience of an "uncivilized" life.
LG Mountains is an area traditionally for vacation cabins of the valley worker bees who want an weekend exile. It is not a place where people think about "starter home" or "investment property". That's why RE bubble will start deflating there.
Residents do need shot guns to fend off wild animals.
As a kid, riding my bike in the hills, rumor had it that residents had shotguns to keep you from steeling their pot plants. No first hand experience of this.
I'm relatively familiar with the area...though I've never heard them referred to as "los gatos mountains"...only "santa cruz mountains" (though most just refer to them as "hills").
Which specific areas are you talking about? Because Loma Prieta is a little further away from Los Gatos compared to say, the Summit Rd/San Jose-Soquel road area. Is that the area you're talking about? Or Bear Creek Road area (i.e. east of Hwy 17 vs. west)?
Maybe because I grew up nearby, & drove all over those hills in high school, it's hard for me to consider them much of a weekend getaway. You're never more than 20-30 minutes from a LOT of civilization. But I suppose if you're not up for the 3-4 hour drive to the sierras....
FollowBefriend2 threads362 comments
OMG! It's like I was struck dumb by a thunderclap and the scales just fell from my eyes! I wasn't really following until the "Renting is for losers" part, but, man, after that, wow. Just wow.
_Aladdin voice_: It's a whole new woooooooooorld...
Of course, not everyone wants to live the life of a land lord. Some poor misguided souls even consider worrying about things like tennants silly and a waste of time in the overall scheme of things. They do things like... programming or lawyering or, say, doctoring. Tragic, but what can one do?
ScottC Says: "Come to my seminar."
Buy a small, comfortable moderately-priced older home, build equity and save money.
Yes, I believe there'll be a time when this well known, time-honored tradition is once again the status quo.
Right now, however, it's just not possible. In many RE markets, there simply is nothing that is "moderately-priced," based on any standard devised outside of a nuthouse.
ScottC, you've proven to be very knolwedgeable about real estate, and you've been in the business very long; so I'm assuming you've seen the periods when real estate prices went up, and those when real estate prices went down.
The problem with most homebuyers I deal with every day is that they all want to start at the top. These are young people, twenty- and thirty-somethings with high ideals, suddenly earning a larger salary than they ever imagined, and they all want to buy their dream home cheap.
True enough. However, in a bubble, fixer-uppers usually have their "potential" priced-in already. On the other hand, starter homes are way overpriced because people are stretching to get in.
What you want is free and clear title to ownership, the right to possession of and rents from property. And the more properties, the better.
I agree. I want to eventually invest in real estate when the valuation is reasonable.
Renting is for losers. The real money is in ownership.
I guess I will be the "loser" for a while. ;)
BTW, I heard the Kalifornian speculators are buying up properties in Texas. What do you think?
the median home price in our county is about 500k for a median salary of 80k –>bubble
We are about 700K for a median salary of 80K -> hyper bubble!
We are about 700K for a median salary of 80K -> hyper bubble!
Similar median salary up here, but $900K "median" home.
t is a mountainous area clsoe to Loma Prieta (ring a bell?) where residents have to get private/mutual water, propane gas and rely on septic tanks. It is a community for people who REALLY want to live in the mountains and tough it out.
I'd be very careful buying anything up there...you want a geologist to check it out and decide how stable the land is. After the Loma Prieta quake, a number of people off Summit road who had damage discovered their land was no deemed unstable, and they couldn't get permits to rebuild. There was a 2ft wide crack down the middle of the road due to the whole ridge shifting.
"Yeah, you would think someone with all that experience would know better than to make the statement “Rent prices are directly tied to the owner’s expenses”. "
It's funny...I knew someone who was looking for a tennant to rent a room...when I asked how he came up with the rent rate, he said it was what he needed to pay 1/2 the mortgage on his 2br condo (he was living in the other room). It happened to be a reasonable amount relative to the market, but the mentality kind of gave me a "WTF?" moment. My take: the "need" factor does play some role...but it has to be put in the context of the "needs" of the other competing landlords.
If you look in the paper and on craiglist, there are all kinds of listings that make you go "WTF?" The average rent might run in the $1600mo neighborhood, and you'll get these listings for $2500mo for a comprable house. Huh? But I think there are so many "investors" out there who bought without a clue and they're trying to cover the mortgage by renting the house out. But regardless of what they need, they're only going to be able to get fair market value; that's why you hear the phrase "negative cash flow " so often.
I'd like to propose a new rule:
Anyone who uses the term "Anglo-Saxon" in an argument automatically loses, regardless of how compelling the rest of the argument is.
So the Anglo-Sa......new rule?
Sh**, now I have to start over....
I propose an exception: any argument that’s funny enough to cause food food particles larger than Cocoa Puffs to be launched from the nostrils for a distance greater than the length of a 6-foot dinner table.
Lol (but not quite that hard)
Sounds like a good rule to me.
As someone who lives north of Minnesota, I think there are numerous people who might not like the tone of your "ice and snow" diatribe! Mind you, as someone who lives south of me, hope you don't mind if I warm up on some fire and brimstone diatribes sometime...
Besides, people in MN are much nicer and more laid back. I couldn’t live among the yuppies and right wingos in OC or any of those fancy places out there (but Northern CA is somewhat a better place to live if you ask me). Oh well.
I don't doubt people in MN are easier to deal with. I lived in LA briefly and couldn't stand it. Northern CA is much better, but in some areas the level of pretention rivals So Cal. If that trend continues I probably will eventually leave CA for the sake of my sanity. My great hope is that if this market returns to sanity, the overinflated ego's of the yuppie class will deflate with the bubble.
I think the greatest "conundrum" in this whole mess is how so many people who earn median or below median incomes can find a way to pay so much for a house. It's truly baffling even with the rampant use of all the NAAVLP's.
"I am sure that everyobdy is nice in MN, and everyone in CA is unbearable."
We must perpetuate this profound truth, if for no other reason than to keep undecided relocators headed toward Minnesota. California sucks! Everyone is broke, or stupifyingly rich, or homeless, or illegal. Crackheads break into my BMW every time I leave it parked for more than five minutes, and there are thirty migrant workers living in the house next door to me.
Minnesot-y is the place you oughtta be, so load on up your truck and head for...oh, sorry, having a Beverly Hillbillies moment there.
I believe the above argument is called the Surfer-X maneuver.
"Worst off, you people move out and bring all that weird shit to the rest of the country, and it’s little wonder why most Americans hate CA yuppies."
Well, anyway, excuse my snark, Jeff. I'm frankly glad there are a ton of people that would never want to live here. Some people think Minnesota is paradise, some people think California is, and so on. Thank God we aren't all trying to live in the same place. I just wish some more people would leave CA. ;-)
To address your question of why people will pay so dearly to live here, sometimes it's job, sometimes it's family, sometimes it's both. Sometimes it's because they haven't lived anywhere else and are afraid if they have to live in any other part of the country their cool factor will diminish considerably and they will be bored to death. Sometimes it's because they can afford to live anywhere and think this is the best place to live.
Why buy a shitbox? Well, I haven't, but of the people I know who have, they're usually buying out of fear, and they think they'll be able to remodel--they just want to get into a place before the market goes any higher. It's never good to make a purchase because of fear, and so here we have this stupid housing market.
We must perpetuate this profound truth, if for no other reason than to keep undecided relocators headed toward Minnesota.
Thats right! California is no place to raise a family. Now Minnesota, that's the ticket.
I didn't mean to sound so down on CA before. But the town I was living in was turning into the worst aspects of a miniature LA, and I've kind reached my tolerance level. It was a great place to live for so long, but once it became inundated with BA yuppies who sold their sh**boxes in the Bay and found themselves able to buy 4,000 sqft homes with money left over for a BMW and an Escalade, it just became unbearable.
I moved across town and I like it much better. The neighborhood is very nice and modest enough that I haven't run into the same attitude here.
All in all, I like CA. You sure as heck can't beat the weather.
Oh wait, I wasn't supposed to say that.
It sucks here! Stay away! Move to Minnesota!
as a Victoriadude, surrounded by geriatrics and american tourists instead of chinese and iranian immigrants, I can totally see where you're coming from-my parents are boomers and they both did better than their kids with less education. A common pattern in late 20th century financial outcomes.
My grandparents bought their first house in Kerrisdale for $3000 in the 1930s. Now the same house would be a couple million - in the last ten years something demographic has happened in congruence with financial voodoo like you say and WHAM!.
All I can say is, amen.
Yes, the Fuchs needs to come home now, he is seriously late with his rent.
« First « Previous comments