patrick.net

like many other regions, not all home actually on sale with sign out front are listed
on MLS... so the lower inventory number is rather deceptive.

i see plenty of home on weekend around were I live and and drive to work...yet
all unlisted on MLS...

So its all BS from my opinion... BTW.. you would think the journalist who keep writing about low inventory would have figured this out on their own.. another bunch of BS.

-banks are STILL holding back homes. Worst case of this I know of is BIg Bear where there's quite the inventory anyway, but reality is somewhere around half the homes have mortgages that are not being paid. It's partially a vacation community so I can't say the homes are being squatted or are vacant(even though no ones there), but the non performing mortgage number vs mls listings is staggering.

-there's a false belief that due to excessive money printing by the Feds that hyperinflation will occur. So despite near 2006 pricing in some areas and people finally being above water, they won't sell because they think they've got a good price locked in and the money will be worthless soon. This is an ignorant position IMO and not only is Japan's lost decade a model for what might happen, gold and silver wouldn't be plumenting if an inflation beast was lurking around the corner.

So what's you're answer then?

Prop-13?

thomaswong.1986 says

like many other regions, not all home actually on sale with sign out front are listed
on MLS... so the lower inventory number is rather deceptive.

i see plenty of home on weekend around were I live and and drive to work...yet
all unlisted on MLS...

So its all BS from my opinion... BTW.. you would think the journalist who keep writing about low inventory would have figured this out on their own.. another bunch of BS.

Don't homes typically un-list right before they sell? I've seen a lot of unlisted with pending/sold signs on the front lawn.

Homes for sale are up sharply YoY in my hood. Still not what I would call an avalanche, but a 30% increase is nothing to sneeze at. Homes sold are down significantly MoM and YoY and median selling price is down significantly MoM, but still up YoY.

I think people aren't selling because they are not confident for the future, because buying is risky when you don't know what the future will bring in terms of your job or how the market will react. IMHO.

Why sell when you can stop payments and squat for years, shucking, diving and dodging? The bank still regards you as a balance sheet asset, so you can ride their bubble coattails.

For people that are move-up buyers, it's tough to let go of a 3.x% mortgage for a 4.5+% mortgage even if they have a lot of equity in their homes. This will only be exacerbated if rates continue rising.

For people that aren't move up buyers:

People who purchased pre-2004 and refinanced probably have payments well below rental-parity. Even if they were inclined to move, their ROI by renting it out exceeds many other current investments.

People who purchased 2005 - 2008 are probably still underwater, or close to it. If they have refinanced, they might close to rental-parity, but probably not there. As prices rise, I'd look for these owners to be most likely to sell as they get above water.

People who purchased 2009 - 2012 are probably also under rental parity.

People who purchased 2012+ would probably lose money in transactions costs by selling so soon, so unless it was a planned flip, they're probably staying put for the next 6 years or so.

Without new construction adding to inventories and keeping up with population growth, there's less downward pressure on home prices.

zesta says

For people that are move-up buyers [...]

So essentially most people who already have a home won't sell... but at least they won't buy an other home elsewhere either.

So many lives trapped in this bog. Thank you Ben.

That leaves mostly penniless first time buyers to compete with investors in an illiquid market.

Well I guess then that one good will come out of this...

Realtors starve

Heraclitusstudent says

zesta says

For people that are move-up buyers [...]

So essentially most people who already have a home won't sell... but at least they won't buy an other home elsewhere either.

So many lives trapped in this bog. Thank you Ben.

That leaves mostly penniless first time buyers to compete with investors in an illiquid market.

Yes, I do think many people will be trapped and we'll see the home ownership rate decline as a result.

dodgerfanjohn says

Well I guess then that one good will come out of this...

Realtors starve

Given the rise of the internet and easily accessible information it's only a matter of time before NAR loses their current business model.

Hopefully transaction costs will decrease as a result.

robertoaribas says

zesta says

Given the rise of the internet and easily accessible information it's only a matter of time before NAR loses their current business model.

Hopefully transaction costs will decrease as a result.

Internet has been around for a hell of a long time; ditto zillow, redfin, truila, etc....

Not in the context it is today...I was still in college when Internet sites started to develop around 1993-1994 ish. Ah the good old days on alt.nba.basketball

Modern usage for real estate didn't really start until 2003-2004 and didn't catch on until 4-5 years later. Redfin was really a game changer.

robertoaribas says

Internet has been around for a hell of a long time; ditto zillow, redfin, truila, etc....

Well a monopoly takes a long time to break. Especially one with deep pockets and a history of lobbying.

I don't think RE Agents are entirely unnecessary, but I do think they should evolve to the point where they're more like paralegals/lawyers.

Marketing/buying selling advice/comps should be done via the web and the 'agents' should simply ensure a smooth transaction, making sure both parties understand the contracts completely.

They would handle more transactions, but be less involved in each one. Of course this means there would be fewer agents.