patrick.net

ex-sunnyvale-renter Says:
So, when are the buses full of homeless going to start pulling in?

A win-win deal!

Gosh, that sounds like some sort of socialized gummint affordable housing solution! Decent affordable housing for all! Non-institutionalised housing for the mentally ill! From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! Who would've thunk it...

Malcolm Says:

> This reminds me of the thread regarding the allegations by hedge
> funds that somehow servicers renegotiating loans was somehow
> market manipulation. Lennar is not De Beers, meaning they are
> not a sole source supplier with the power to control supply. If
> Lennar doesn’t want to sell houses at a loss, they will just lose
> out on the few buyers who would take some of their excess supply.

With 259 homes that cost $600K each to develop it will cost a lot to hang on to them.

Property Taxes will be about $1.8mm a year and the construction loan debt service will be about $12mm a year.

Add in security and maintenance and will cost about $1.2mm a MONTH to “mothball” the development.

It sounds like Lennar is doing what many flippers did holding a bunch of real estate and “hoping” that the value goes up by more than their carry cost of $50K per home per year…

DS, it is quite significant. Here in California the builders have to pay 1 to 1.3% depending on the county, on the current market value of their improved properties. If the average house is $500,000 roughly then it is more than $5,000 per year per vacant home.

Like you said before though, it is a short term business, and there are even more significant costs which ruin the whole profit model. I actually invest in construction loans and it is doubtful that any of them can borrow for less than 10%. Certainly not the smaller ones who can easily pay 12-15% on hard money construction loans. Hold a house for a year and basically that is the whole margin....gone.

FormerApt,
It is funny how the psychology is the same whether it is an individual or a giant corporation. I can't be too judgemental, it is a bad decision but it is like a gambler who is down. As long as you keep playing there is a chance, but as soon as you call it quits, that's it, reality hits them in the face, it is a REAL loss.

In case anyone missed the news yesterday, Starbucks reported a 1 percent drop in traffic at U.S. stores open at least 13 months, the first such decline in the company's history. Leading economic indicators are not looking good. Is anyone handicapping "Black Friday"? One last Merry Christmas, or is it all downhill from here?

FormerApt,
Using your numbers it is fun to flip the problem around. Say that they hold them for a year, it is indisputable that they will have a hard cost of 25 million or more. Now let's see what they need to do to dig them out of the hole.

Assume that they are right and they will get full price in a year. (yeah right). Assume a 10% margin on each 600K full price house. That is $60K. Given this best case scenario they would have to sell 417 houses just to walk away, ooops they are only mothballing 259. Uh oh.

I guess they better get started building the extra 158 houses and hopefully the market will have picked up by the time they are all built.

This is a classic "let's lose a little on each one and make it up in volume" model. Oh man, that is so painful just to simulate.

EB, do you think it is a real decline or could the stores open for less time be cannibalizing their existing base?

EB, do you think it is a real decline or could the stores open for less time be cannibalizing their existing base?
You are asking the wrong person... because, as a Peets shareholder, I know in my heart-of-hearts that their high end customers are defecting :-)

St. John added. ‘If you’re starting off from a position of negative $300,000, that takes more than a few years to rectify.’”

St. John was martyred, impaled upon a golden pike. He remains patron saint of diseases of the lower colon and nether regions. He is often prayed to in cases of multiple annual rectification.

now that I think about it .....

They could've burned 'em a few weeks ago.

I worried about arson here before.....

If a house burns down, on what basis does the insurance company pay out? Original sales price? Comps and square footage? Stated value by the developers? Will they pay out less now that prices are falling? And then of course the land doesn't burn.

EBguy I hear you on Peet's.

Starbucks is a level lower in quality than Peet's. The coffee the same price but better, the little snackies are equally sugary and annoying at both places, the people are nicer at Peet's, and Peet's has a higher grade of coffee cups etc - less made in china stuff and the stuff doesn't have the "K-mart chic" feel to it.

So overall Peet's wins.

I got my awesome Chemex coffee maker at Peet's too, great gadget.

BTW .... WTF?

http://www.click2houston.com/news/14615114/detail.html

Oh, fuck, Pasadena TEXAS.

Sometimes I read things too quick.

And now we return to our scheduled bubble coverage .....

Rumor and innuendo on the commercial market from Ben's. Toth says he heard that grade A real estate saw vacancy rate increases across ALL bay area markets. Can FAB or anyone else confirm (or deny)? Oh, now this would get some of the regulars here worked up.

# FormerAptBroker Says:
It sounds like Lennar is doing what many flippers did holding a bunch of real estate and “hoping” that the value goes up by more than their carry cost of $50K per home per year…

Didn't you hear? Sue McAllister said the market will pick up after the superbowl. It was in the Mercury News, so don't you worry about a thing...

SP

EBGuy Says:
In case anyone missed the news yesterday, Starbucks reported a 1 percent drop in traffic

Yep, I saw that and raised my home-made cappuccino (about 25 cents to make) in silent celebration of this forum's foresight.

More interesting to me was the daily news warnings about bond insurers. Every day now for the past week, someone or other has been warning that sellers of credit default swaps and other insurance could be hit.

I think it is a signal that it is already happening - watch out when that news breaks and the collective-dump hits the fan. Remember, you heard it here.

SP

EBGuy Says:
grade A real estate saw vacancy rate increases across ALL bay area markets. Can FAB or anyone else confirm (or deny)? Oh, now this would get some of the regulars here worked up.

You lookin' at me? :-)

Seriously, FAB, do you have the numbers? It would be a VERY unmistakable indicator of health in the Bay Area wreckonomy (tm)

DennisN Says:
November 16th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
"If a house burns down, on what basis does the insurance company pay out? Original sales price? Comps and square footage? Stated value by the developers? Will they pay out less now that prices are falling? And then of course the land doesn’t burn."

The policies are for replacement cost, meaning they will rebuild the house to the same standards as before. After the Cedar fires of 2003 the laws were changed to avoid being underinsured. It used to be, that you would have a policy written for the value of the improvement, but as time went by people didn't upgrade the coverage and found inflation caused them to be underinsured. Personal contents are a small upcharge, and a good policy will have workers comp, as well as liability protection for things like dog bites. Believe it or not earthquake insurance is not in a standard homeowner's policy, that in my case is about a 50% upcharge roughly $300 extra per year. I don't carry earthquake coverage. Mold is expressly excluded from standard policies.

Since we seem to be doing the weekly news wrap up, here are my other highlights:
1. GE not-quite a money market fund going below $1 NAV
2. BofA setting aside several hundred million to prop up a money market fund
3. Wells Fargo CEO starting to mimic the Tanman with "housing not this bad since the Great Depression" talk. I can imagine many a Wells low LTV subprime loan in the Central Valley/IE is starting to become a not-so-low LTV loan.

I exited some mutual funds in the retirement account during the mid-week rally and am heading for the GLD fallout shelter. As Randy said on this thread a while back, they will fire up the printing presses before allowing a MMF to fail.

You lookin’ at me?
You and skibum were two folks I had in mind ;-)
And for what its worth, our building still seems to have a fair number of vacancies...

So, when are the buses full of homeless going to start pulling in?
There seems to have happened to a newer office building in Sunnyavle or Santa Clara (Lawrence and El Camino), This building was brand new a few years ago, and then the tenant moved out. A few months ago I saw a lot of broken windows and then the whole building was fenced off.

Sometimes a lot of things in Silivalley seems rather 3rd world.

McAllister is a complete REIC shill and whore. Her articles are completely useless. RE agents might as well cut-and-paste her drivel directly into their ads.

Agree, a few years ago at the height of the bubble she wrote an article quoting some RW, the RW made a comparison something about selling in the expensive neighborhood is not like selling a 500K house in Santa Clara (exactly what I forgot).

The funny thing is that I emailed Sue McAllister and told her that week there was not a single 3/2 house in Santa Clara that was under 600K, she replied the RW was speaking metaphorically. I was totally enlightened about her reply.

Lawrence and ECR ..... yeah, that rings a bell. Larry and El Camino is a very slummy area, that's where the true Silicon Valley ambiance is to be savored .......

If I'd stayed there I'd be living in the bushes with my stuff in a storage, sketching people (badly at least at first) at farmers' markets and probably making noise with a geetar on the street for variety for coins .....

Instead I came here.

Everyone's white! Everyone's nice! I have ..... a room and a workshop and tons of tools, material, 2 acres, a motorcycle (hehe!) plus tons of toys from lathe to BIG forklift to a truck and a car and more cars'n'trucks, and I got Welfare!

Red State Bliss!!

I should have something going in a few months, then can tell Welfare thanks for the help but I'm doing OK.....

Meanwhile back in the BA I'd be dodging meth-heads and essentially begging ..... not knocking begging in the BA, it's not bad, I guess on one level I sensed where things are going and started befriending some of the street people, the BA is actually very 3rd world.

Went to the Hudson and Marshall auction in Stockton last night. They auctioned off about 60 bank owned properties. What a realtor zoo. You had to run a gauntlet of re agents trying to get their 2 percent to represent you. I've never seen so many beggars acting so arrogant. The Eau de 2005 still oozes from their pores - but at least now you can see the fear in their eyes. Two of the open houses I visited last weekend had sold in the low 400's in late 2005 and went in the mid 200's at auction. Overall though, the winning bids seemed way too high for a market in meltdown.

low 400s to mid 200s is still too high? that's only a 40% drop, I can see why you'd be disappointed...

Different Sean:

The properties were sold with reserve, ie. the bank will review the high bids and accept or reject in a week or so. It will be a while before I can see what actually happens with the offers. Saved my catalog in which I wrote the high bids and I'll follow a few to see the outcome. Some lenders must realize that the offers won't be any higher in next few months. US Bank alone holds over 400 properties in this county. Unemployment in the Stockton area has jumped to over 8 percent. I'm thinking the smart money will wait at least until the ARM resets peak in 2008.

Somebody wrote a note on here yesterday contrasting the SF Chronicle's spin on housing prices versus the SJ Mercury News.

SJ Merc has a lot of real estate advertising in the Saturday and Sunday editions. Seems like the Chronicle has less of it.

Betcha they don't want to upset those advertisers at the SJMN.

The SJ Merc publishes "real estate transactions" every Saturday.

According to their data, two homes in th "non-Fortress" (s*box) SJ tract where I live, very similar homes to the one I live in, sold recently, for about what I reckon is 20% less than they woulda fetched a year ago, and about 24% less than two years ago.

Theres lotsa homes for sale in the neighborhood, too.

Losing 20% a year? Oh why didn't I get on that bandwagon.....

The Original Bankster Says:
November 17th, 2007 at 12:36 am
"House Approves Bill to Restrict Mortgages"

Legislate due dilligence....wow our government in action. I think they should pass a law making it illegal to stick a metal fork in an electric outlet.

Isn't that just going to cause the underwriting cost to surge upwards? How will the lenders deal with new fixed costs in an obviously cyclical market?

ex renter,

Probably about minus 4% year before last, about 20% this year. Don't forget, we had some insane year-over-year appreciation 1998 - 2006.

Yes, minus 20% this year. But not exactly " minus 20% per year".

sybrib: Comparing a decline after a gain is better done with absolute numbers instead of a percentage. If there was a +50% gain from the bottom, and then a -20% loss from the top, that really removes 30 of 50%.

Right now I'm seeing condos that sold for $150-160K in 2002/2003 go for $125K now (they were built in 2001-2003). Most of the big price drops are from REO; I suspect that the builder had a pocket mortgage broker for "creative" financing. The owner-occupied comps are creeping down as well, but it's the REO that really seems to shove things down hard. SFH's are holding up better, but the $/sqft is slowing descending after a long plateau at $100.

-slowing +slowly

TOB: Um, yeah. Hence the question. If their revenue stream is cyclical, but their fixed costs have increased due to legislation, that will put them further underwater during bad times.

Brand,

Appreciation since I bought that property as compounded annual appreciation between 5 to 5.5%. If we still had 2005 prices now it'd be just about 7%.

I'm not cool and hip enough to calculate the exact appreciation of the equity because of the rental equivalency cost. I'd say, the first 5 years or so I paid a premium for owning which would include time value of downpayment money, then the next decade and a half has been below market "rent equivalency", even including property tax, insurance, maintenance, etc. And for "rent equivalency" I'm comparing to the kind of rental I lived in before, a 2 BR/ 2 BA apartment in a 1960's genre building, not the 4BR 2 BA 1970's s*box where I live.

Suppose the ownership premium and time value of downpayment money roughly cancelled out the "ownership discount" since then, the appreciation of the downpayment money has compounded annual increase of about 13 to 14%. If we still had 2005 prices it'd be about 17%.

I've tracked the sales prices in my zip code going back to the middle 1960's: the regression line to the log plot, with very good fit, is in the 8 to 9% per year range. But mine's only been 5%. That's what happens when you buy in a housing bubble like I was so stupid to do last time we had a housing bubble.

Tim Iacono of http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/ is meeting Patrick Killea:

.....
.....

One of the highlights of the trip will be sitting down for a cup of coffee with Patrick Killea of the world famous housing crash site Patrick.net.

Oh yeah, gotta pick up some sourdough bread too.

Bap, I think that graph was normalized for inflation. And I thought recent CPI is oft-cited in the 3-3.5% range.

Brand Says:

> sybrib: Comparing a decline after a gain is better
> done with absolute numbers instead of a percentage.
> If there was a +50% gain from the bottom, and then
> a -20% loss from the top, that really removes
> 30 of 50%.

It is a 200% loss (before any cost of sale or the extra cost for the year to "own"/"rent money from a bank") with a 10% down payment and 100% loss with a 20% down payment...

P.S. I have heard from friends that are Commercial leasign brokers in the Bay Area that things are slowing down (except around Google and in SF SOMA where a lot of social networking stuff is going on)...

FAB, although I obviously am not fond of percentages, you made an interesting point. A 200% loss is obviously negative equity. I have often noticed that people in the Bay Area don't have much more saved than folks elsewhere. With 5x the home prices, their survivability is tremendously lower than the rest of the country.

In Colorado, a 10% downpayment on a $200,000 loan is $20,000. Most established homeowners could handle losing $20,000. It would be severely painful for many people, but it's financially survivable.

In California, that same $20,000 would only be a 2.5% downpayment on an $800,000 loan. All it takes is a tiny drop in home values to put that loanowner way into the red. In fact, you've got a 6% realtor commission built in along with all the origination fees, taxes and other purchase costs.

So my question is, are California homeowners actually more likely to embrace foreclosure, simply because a sale would immediately bankrupt them? That really becomes the ultimate sticky behavior, since there is absolutely no option to accept anything less than the precise price (without bank approval, and even then there's a 1099). At least in other areas of the country people can still eat the difference and move on.