patrick.net

I just read the article on Patrick’s links about the slowly re-emerging Japanese housing market. It mentioned that a 750sqft apartment goes for about $350K, which is a lot of money. But not too long ago, the same apt sold for $1.5 mil. Ouch.

Japan does look like it is recovering. However, I did see a new construction single family house in Kyoto selling for less than $500K. It does not look too small. I can post a picture tonight. New 900sqft apartments are going for less than $400K.

Japan has much tighter zoning regulations than California and people feel more strongly about keeping their homes. Yet their market crashed badly. What does this say about the California RE market?

From the August "Housing Bubble Glossary" thread:

“MIRAGE” (Moneyed Immigrants, Rich Ancestors, Generous Expatriates): Acronym coined by yours truly to lampoon the bulls’ argument that housing demand is being supported by cash-rich immigrants, wealthy parents and transplants from other states.

I was also in Hong Kong. It appears that the media that are openly saying that the housing market is cooling there and that rate hikes will harm the market more.

Despite common perception, no one is immune.

Not even the Marina district?

Interesting, many people who have contended that there is no housing bubble are now saying that there is a housing bubble but they are immune because...

A small newsflash: our Marin Bubble Blog was mentioned in a local paper.

http://tinyurl.com/e22s7

Rather amusing...it's really helped the blog's visibility
Overall, the response has been positive.

You’re blaming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the price of homes?

I blame zoning regulations and supply-side restrictions.

However, GSEs do attempt to affect "affordability" by facilitating liquidity on the financing side. This leads to imbalances in pricing IMO.

Nevertheless, imbalances do get corrected eventually.

You’re blaming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the price of homes? That reflects a severe misunderstanding of the market. Fannie and Freddie place repossessed homes on the market at FAIR MARKET VALUE, which is the going rate for comparable homes. It is hardly their fault the price of homes has risen dramatically.

The fact that the GSE's put AG's monopoly money into the system is what drives up the prices. They buy mortgages from banks, thus taking the risk away from banks. When the banks are relieved from their risks, they loosen their standards to allow anyone to get a loan (as long as they don't have more than 9 bankruptcies). When you allow people from all walks of life to buy houses by putting huge amounts of money in their hands, the laws of supply and demand will drive the prices up. It's very simple and very obvious....I don't know why you would even deny this!

Any attempt to make things more "affordable" without increasing supply will create imbalances and is counter-productive.

I do not blame anyone for this bubble because it will correct itself. Market prevails eventually.

I do not blame anyone for this bubble because it will correct itself. Market prevails eventually

...and many of those who created the bubble will suffer from the aftermath.

…and many of those who created the bubble will suffer from the aftermath.

Free entertainment. :twisted:

ScottC,

Again, fixing up repossessed homes is a great thing, but this is not the business the GSEs are in (perhaps you have them confused with HUD and Habitat for Humanity?).

As Allah & Peter P noted, their core business and reason for being is purchasing mortgages from the banks/originators, repackaging them as MBSs and selling them to institutional investors at a profit (thus, providing mortgage market “liquidity”).

We seem to be arguing apples and oranges here.

I expect that the magnitude of the housing bubble bust will exceed my expectations.

Did I just create a paradox?

Talk about entertainment.
http://sacramento.craigslist.org/rfs/116568833.html

With all the chatter about free food, they forgot to mention this is mere minutes away from Folsom State Prison!

Did I just create a paradox?

Which one is greater: Peter P's immovable pessimism, or the bubble's irresistable implosion? :-P

Which one is greater: Peter P’s immovable pessimism, or the bubble’s irresistable implosion?

If I am immovably pessimistic, I must be optimistic about my pessimism, right?

A small newsflash: our Marin Bubble Blog was mentioned in a local paper.

http://tinyurl.com/e22s7
-Kurt S

Listen to this guy from the article:

"Clearly, this is a case of someone who has come up with an early case of Marin real estate flu," laughed Marin Association of Realtors President Jack McLaughlin, who was quoted in an Independent Journal article posted on the blog. "We don't have the vaccine for this guy."

Laugh it up while you still can Jack. What an a-hole!

"Did I just create a paradox?"

What you stated was an Oxymoron.

What you stated was an Oxymoron.

This is a false statement.

Somewhat of a paradox unless it was the result of a parallax.

"This is a false statement." and "I always lie."

"Hoo hoo hah hah, it's as if the foolish peons don't even realize that I have the most to gain personally for keeping this housing bubble inflated," chortled Marin Association of Realtors President Jack McLaughlin. "Oops, did I just say that in my out-loud voice? Can I get a retraction on that? I mean, I was just kidding!" added McLaughlin.

does anybody know what would be the median home price in mountain view, sunnyvale, santa clara area in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009? My estimate is that the prices would bottom out by spring 2008. I dont know by how much. Comments? --Realistic Desi

I would go with a 25% drop by then. Most will probably think that's much too rosy, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

I would go with a 25% drop by then. Most will probably think that’s much too rosy, but that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it!

25% is a bit rosy. IMO many properties will face a 50% - 65% fall.

My opinion... For single family detached homes, I would bet on a decline in real terms of about 20 to 25% by the market bottom (2008 or 2009). Condos should decline by about 30% to 40% in real terms.

My opinion… For single family detached homes, I would bet on a decline in real terms of about 20 to 25% by the market bottom (2008 or 2009). Condos should decline by about 30% to 40% in real terms.

I have to add that Zephyr's predictions are likely to be much more accurate than mine.

I expect inflation will be about 4% in the near future, but will drop below 2% by 2009. So the nominal declines should be about 15% for single family detached homes in the areas like the ones mentioned, and about 25% for condos.

For the countrywide averages I expect prices will be close to flat or modestly increased (0 to 15%) by 2009.

There will be examples and selected zipcodes where much more significant drops will be seen. Of course, there will also be some places where prices will continue to rise even during the worst years. For the most part, the more that prices have recently increased, the more they will decline.

I expect inflation will be about 4% in the near future, but will drop below 2% by 2009.

Which inflation?

The switch by speculators from the buy side to the sell side of the market is the major factor tipping the scale now. Many of these people bit off more than they could chew, and were naive about the realities of the market cycle.

It will take about two years before most of these amateurs will have given up, sold out and gone away. Then the market will have only the real need buyers, and the experienced investors.

CPI, but at such low inflation numbers there is little difference.

I also expect a mild recession to start about one year from now.

On Easier Credit and Tax Deductions…

I think there is some confusion on the topic of how easier credit affects housing affordability. Clearly, easier credit contributes to higher prices. The reason that easier credit drives prices up is that it makes housing more affordable at the same price, which then causes the prices to rise to restore the previous affordability balance (all else being equal). To be sure, the effect (like all market changes) affects some buyers more than others. If credit were more difficult the prices would be lower, but it would be harder for most people to pay them.

The tax deduction for mortgage interest has a similar impact. However, it helps borrowers who pay a high income tax rate more than it helps lower income tax borrowers. The price level is driven up to the middle ground of this effect (probably by about 10 to 15%). People who get very little benefit from the tax deduction lose out because the prices are higher. So ironically, because first time buyers tend to be in lower tax brackets, the tax deduction for mortgage interest may actually make housing less affordable for most first-time buyers. Offsetting this is the fact that the tax deduction clearly favors those who borrow a larger share of the price – a characteristic of first time buyers.

Also, tax deduction causes some people to lengthen mortgage term or use interest only mortgages in order to "maximize" deduction.

Zephyr writes:
I expect inflation will be about 4% in the near future, but will drop below 2% by 2009.

I'm sure this has been discussed already, but isn't taking out a home loan most expensive in real terms when the rate of inflation is low, although the loan interest rate might be low, too?
Main reason being that your monthly payments are inflated down only very very slowly, and thus stay painful (like: "no vacation, no furniture"-painful) for a longer time?

Girgl, The real rate of interest on a mortgage will be higher if the rate is fixed and inflation subsequently declines. However, if you have an adjustible rate loan your nominal rate would (normally) decline along with the decline in inflation (and rise with increasing inflation) keeping your real rate somewhat stable over time.

As borrower you should prefer a fixed rate when you expect rates to increase substantially in the future, and an adjustible rate when you expect stable or declining rates. In the very long run borrowing with a fixed rate is significantly more expensive than using adjustible rates because of the premium you must pay for certainty.

I financed all of my property with fixed rates prior to 1987, and switched to adjustible rate loans thereafter.

Zephyr says:
In the very long run borrowing with a fixed rate is significantly more expensive than using adjustible rates because of the premium you must pay for certainty.

Interesting! I had never really thought it through to that depth. Certainly makes sense.
So if you assume that the trend towards a world economy based on free trade does not reverse (and there are people who state there's a long-term cycle between free trade and a more closed world economy), the deflationary pressures brought forward by globalization and increased productivity are here to stay, and thus interest rates will stay low for quite a while.
At this point an ARM mortgage might be the better choice.

At this point an ARM mortgage might be the better choice.--Girgl

Don't count on it--interest rates are still at historically very low levels right now. Globalization cannot continue to make things cheaper forever because globalization requires energy to run on. Energy being a limited natural resource necessitates a long-term upward trend in its' price. Furthermore, the new FED chief has long declared deflation as the devil and basically will not allow it to happen no matter how much money he has to print.