According to Foreclosureradar.com, there is no shadow inventory, so good luck to those waiting for a flood of houses to go on the market...
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_21312143/bay-area-foreclosures-jump-july
There is no "shadow inventory"
By wave9x Follow Wed, 15 Aug 2012, 4:03pm 16,312 views 183 comments
Watch (2) Share
Quote
Permalink Like (1) Dislike (3) « First « Previous Viewing Comments 144-183 of 183 Last » See most liked comments
|
wave9x is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (3)
9 threads
716 comments
Los Angeles, CA
Homeboy says
It's easy to talk about this. Do you SEE any areas where you can build?? I don't.
Done.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
210 comments
dodgerfanjohn says
You're right about the neighborhoods ready to gentrify. There are plenty.
There's a big difference in buying 1000 acres of land and putting cookie-cutter housing tracts and scraping individual lots and putting up SFHs or mixed-used projects. The margins aren't the same and the additional red tape makes it exceptionally time-consuming.
Playa Vista was the last major residential development in LA's westside and it took them almost 30 years to build ~3k units.
There's probably more room to build Orange County, but gas prices are killing the exurbs and major development in LA.
Follow
Befriend
17 threads
1,602 comments
SubOink says
Miss the point much? I thought this was obvious, but:
Many people in 2006 said that L.A. was "built out", that there was a housing shortage, and that therefore prices would continue to rise.
Did prices continue to rise? No.
What can we learn from this? That it is a bogus argument. It was bogus then, and it is bogus now. I am not questioning whether there are places to build; I am saying it is not relevant.
DONE.
Follow
Befriend
17 threads
1,602 comments
Oh, and to answer your question - Is there any vacant land within an hour of major employment centers in L.A.? Yes.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
210 comments
Homeboy says
Gas prices during the boom years were about $2-$3/gallon.
In 2007/2008 gas prices spiked to above $4 and people realized that high gas prices were a strong possibility. There's been a change in where people are willing to live, and you can see it in the fall of housing prices in the exurbs. Santa Clarita, Riverside were places that you could build housing tracts. If nobody wants to live there anymore, where else will you build?
Follow
Befriend
17 threads
1,602 comments
zesta says
Well, no - prices fell because they were unsustainable. We had a bubble, and then it burst. Gas prices had nothing to do with it.
If you don't believe people commute anymore, try getting on ANY freeway during commute hours.
Follow
Befriend (4)
26 threads
1,565 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
zesta says
Have you seen the 405, 91, 55, 57, 10, and 110 during rush hour? There are still a lot of people willing to commute from Santa Clarita, Corona, etc to get to job centers.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
210 comments
How far have housing prices fallen in the Central Valley compared to SF?
How far have housing prices fallen in the Inland Empire compared to LA?
Using traffic as a metric is ridiculous. Can I use that same metric and conclude that since there's a lot of traffic during rush hour unemployment is low?
Follow
Befriend
17 threads
1,602 comments
zesta says
That will tell you nothing. You need to know how far prices ROSE during the bubble. Outlying areas are always more volatile. Prices rise AND fall more in outlying areas.
No, your analogy is ridiculous. The difference in unemployment statistics between good and bad times is going to be 5% or less. Are you telling me you think you can spot a 5% difference one way or another in traffic congestion just by looking? No, that is going to be a miniscule difference. But if people stopped commuting from outlying areas, the difference would not be miniscule.
Follow
Befriend (4)
26 threads
1,565 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
zesta says
http://www.redfin.com/city/17676/CA/Santa-Clarita
Homes sales in Santa Clarita are up 16% YOY. Who is being ridiculous now?
Follow
Befriend
1 comments
There is much being made about the alleged “shadow inventory” of homes being held by banks that are in some stage of foreclosure. Advocates of the “the shadow inventory is ‘out-there-lurking-and-ready-to-dump-new-inventory-on-the-market’ obviously have no idea about the disincentives for banks to do that.
In addition to the mistake of perhaps selling too soon into a rising market, banks have a very important reason not to sell their property at a loss. If a bank sells a property at a loss, they must immediately show that loss on their books and every loss affects their stock, their loss ratio and their P&L sheets. Analysts of banks look very carefully at loan loss coverage ratios and it has a major effect on the market reputation of the bank as well as how the investor community sees that bank.
This issue was seen during the financial crisis of 2008/09 when many securities held on banks' balance sheets could not be valued efficiently as the markets had disappeared from them. In April of 2009, however, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) voted on and approved new guidelines that would allow for the valuation to be based on a price that would be received in an orderly market rather than a forced liquidation. Starting in the first quarter of 2009, banks were allowed to not “mark-to-market”. This ruling fixed an accounting problem which had been causing many banks to appear undercapitalized when in fact they were not.
When a bank has to write down an asset on its books, it not only has to take the loss, but also has to beef up its reserve of cash to cover its declining asset base. The net result is a black eye and less money to lend— even if the bank plans to hold the asset until indefinitely or until maturity. So basically, there is no incentive whatsoever for a bank to rush onto the market any properties subject to foreclosure. Those who fail to understand the internal workings of banks are still believing the myth of “shadow inventory” rather than the fact that the FASB accounting rules allow banks to hold troubled real estate assets without having to write down their value. Maybe these “believers” should come out of their own shadows and see the light of day.
Follow
Befriend
1 comments
Here's your shadow inventory. Take the average number of foreclosed homes before the robosigning settlement and compare it to the average number of forclosed homes after. The difference in those averages multiplied by the time since forclosuregate is where all your shadow inventory is.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/foreclosure-stuffing
Follow
Befriend
1 comments
There is in West Palm Beach. I see it almost everyday while doing home inspections. Homes that are vacant, haven't been sold in years and not for sale at the present time. I get calls all the time that have recently hit the market that have mold issues from sitting vacant and improperly air conditioned for so long.
Follow
Befriend (8)
40 threads
2,062 comments
Pleasanton, CA
Premium
zesta says
That has been always a gimmick of realtors for years. If you opened your eyes and looked around, even in L.A., you would see there is land everywhere. Yes, more than enough to meed the piddly demand that exists. Only one way to go with prices from here. Interest rates are half what they used to be in 2007 and prices are less. Not a good sign and that speaks the truth. People are extended to death and just barely hanging on. "No shadow inventory"? Reading thing like this means that the bang will then be even worst. Good luck out there.
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
As someone who has been trying to find a good lot to build on for months, I'm going to have to disagree about land near big cities.
Every lot I've seen is either too many expensive to build on (half of my budget or more) or unsuitable for building (slopes, wetlands, protected species, etc.)
For subdivision builders, things are not even worse since they tend yo need good plots in the 10 acre+ variety.
New construction just can't be competitive with existing inventory in the present market. When you can buy a 3000 sf home with hardwoods, granite, high end appliances, Trippe paned windows, etc. For $500k, there's no way for new construction to be competitive.
Expect future builders to focus on smaller homes and quality design to be competitive. Either that or they wait until all the mcmansions start falling apart so that they can go back to vinyl and carpet and be competitive
Follow
Befriend (1)
48 threads
172 comments
Maybe the govt invented an invisible cloak to cover the empty homes so nobody can see it.
Follow
Befriend (5)
25 threads
1,324 comments
Premium
There is no shadow inventory. It is in the sunshine.
Troubled to for sale properties are up to over eight to one in Pittsburg CA.
The fortress outer walls are being reduced.
Follow
Befriend (8)
40 threads
2,062 comments
Pleasanton, CA
Premium
Kevin says
With cities poised to go bankrupt all through the U.S. you can bet that re-zoning will be done in metro areas. I didn't say the land was accessible right now, but it will be. Look around, it is everywhere. The one thing this country has is land.
Follow
Befriend (5)
25 threads
1,324 comments
Premium
Zillow map from one of the "better" 'hoods in Pittsburg.
Blue is distressed 369 properties.
Red is for sale 30 properties (5 of which are foreclosures)
12 distressed per everyone for sale.
Follow
Befriend (5)
25 threads
1,324 comments
Premium
Phoenix AZ
6225 Distressed (not in Robertos hood)
5664 for sale (including 302 foreclosures)
More than one distressed for every for sale.
I have noticed more listings on Zillow lately. The shadow inventory is revealing itself.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
The Professor says
Seriously man, you have GOT to stop trying to second guess the market and look at THE MARKET! The dream of waiting for the shadow inventory to force down home prices was shattered in 2012. Home prices have to FALL 25% just to get back to January and they show no sign of slowing down........even in the dead of winter! Sales numbers have to more thanTRIPLE just to get back to December 2011. Trying to make a case about foreclosure pressures in Contra Costa County is like trying to prove the Titanic is seaworthy while water keeps pouring into the hull.
It's time to concede, regroup, and try to figure out what the next 5 years will look like.
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
1,158 comments
Seattle, WA
David Losh's website
Premium
If you can see, and quantify the shadow inventory, it's no longer a shadow.
Follow
Befriend (5)
25 threads
1,324 comments
Premium
Thanks for the pep talk Iwog.
High prices are not good. Wages are not rising so it means that people must pay larger mortgage or rent payments. Costlier housing is going to leave less spendable income to fuel our consumer society. Less consumerism less jobs.
Who's gonna pay the rent?
Contra Costa County Quantified
1645 For Rent
5441 Distressed (not in Iwogs hood)
1240 for sale (including 131 foreclosures)
About four distressed for every one for sale.
Many of the distressed loans will probably become shortsales or foreclosures.
The investers are buying these up as fast as they can because they think that they can rent them back to the defaulters for more than the defaulters were paying in mortgage.
Is the future like Pittsburg? All the old homes that used to be manicured by proud old Italian men are becoming high density single family rentals with many more cars on the block and many less gardens in the yards.
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
The Professor says
This makes roughly zero sense. If they can afford a higher rent payment, they wouldn't be in default on the loan.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Kevin says
Absolutely false. I'll use my own tenants as an example:
- Lost home to foreclosure in 2008. His payment was $4600 1st and 2nd.
- Rented from me in 2008 for $2000 per month in a house that is worth $250,000.
- Is just emerging from credit jail.
- Can EASILY afford PITI on this exact same house at $500,000 and a 10% down, which would result in a payment of just over $2000.
- Using this example, which is identical to nearly every house I own and rent out in Concord, the market could quite quickly double in price while still being quite affordable to most people who are currently renting and a fraction of the 2006 market.
This is the real on-the-ground situation. It is radically different from the picture being painted here.
Follow
Befriend (2)
61 threads
1,329 comments
Premium
The Professor says
Its not a secret how much is market rent and who your likely customers are. Whatever the renter paid prior to default is irrelevant as they won't pay a penny more than required as well.
Investors buy them because eventually the same person who defaulted will be buying again, when financing is available to them, at much higher price.
My tenants would be buying if they can, but they can't. When it is available, they'll be competing among themselves and price will rise.
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
iwog says
Your renter isn't paying you $4600 a month, so its really not countering what I said.
Nobody is going yo default and then rent the same house for a higher payment.
And if the place is only worth $250k, nobody will rent it for $4600 period.
They'll certainly rent it for more than what *you* pay, but thats not what the professor was claiming.
(I highly doubt they'd pay double, either, unless shit hits the fan and inflation goes through the roof. Try charging $4000 when the lease is up and let me know how many tenants you attract)
Follow
Befriend (5)
25 threads
1,324 comments
Premium
iwog says
So when is your tenant closing?
The key word in my statement was "think".
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
I don't think anybody is that dumb. They're buying the properties because they can make a decent rental profit, not because they're delusional.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Kevin says
Of course it is. You said:
Kevin says
I gave you an example of someone who defaulted on a loan, and who could easily afford to buy the house he's living in for the rent he's paying now at double the price!
The factors preventing him from doing so are temporary. There are only two:
1. Saving up for a down payment, which he may have already done for all I know and
2. Getting out of credit jail which will happen eventually regardless of circumstances.
Follow
Befriend (5)
25 threads
1,324 comments
Premium
3. Competing with all of the investers that want double the PITI.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
The Professor says
Of course investors want double the PITI, who wouldn't? The opportunities for that are mostly gone now.
Follow
Befriend (5)
25 threads
1,324 comments
Premium
iwog says
Mostly?
What is the ratio of expense vs income for your properties?
I know you are just playing the game by the rules and if you did not do it someone else would, BUT don't you see anything wrong with taking advantage of the market by outmaneuvering first time buyers and then renting to them for more than PITI?
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
iwog says
That is not what the professor was claiming at all Mr duck. Read it again.
Follow
Befriend (4)
26 threads
1,565 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
Even the biggest of Ponzi enablers, JP Morgan Chase, doesn't claim there isn't any "shadow inventory":
People just disagree on the numbers, and how it will have an effect on the market. But the homes aren't really in the shadows.
Follow
Befriend (5)
25 threads
1,324 comments
Premium
Goran_K says
It looks like the outflow exceeds the inflow. We should be out of the housing mess within a couple of years.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
The Professor says
If I saw something wrong with it, then I would be making an argument prohibiting the ownership of private property.
I am not a communist. I really do wish I could make as much money creating real wealth instead of hoarding wealth, however 30 years of gross stupidity by American voters have stripped my customers of their ability to pay.
I would rather be running a farm, mine, factory, or restaurant but the current economy is very hostile to any of these industries.
Follow
Befriend (4)
26 threads
1,565 comments
Laguna Beach, CA
Premium
The Professor says
I think at minimum, 3-4 years. That's assuming the fundementals such as unemployment, growth, etc correct as well.
If unemployment remains high, and we continually hit debt ceilings, I think all bets are off.
One thing is for sure, we're not out of the woods quite yet.
Follow
Befriend (5)
25 threads
1,324 comments
Premium
iwog says
So true.
I see a death spiral if we don't change things.
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
iwog says
Farming has always been tough. That's why we subsidize the industry so much.
Mines are doing great if you're mining the right thing. Copper, rare earths, and precious metals are doing particularly well.
Factories also depend highly on what you make. Foxconn, samsung, and other large manufacturers are going gangbusters. There's just no opportunity for anything small scale.
Restaurants have never really been both good investments and producers of quality food. You can get a nice consistent return owning a fast food chain, but then you're just contributing to the demise of society.