PDA

View Full Version : Final Word: 12 reasons now is not the time to buy a house.



Midnight Son
04-18-2008, 04:10 AM
http://patrick.net/housing/crash.html


It's A Terrible Time To Buy

Why?

[1] It's still much cheaper to rent than to own the same thing. Yearly rents are less than 3% of purchase price. Mortgage rates are 6.5%, so it costs more than twice as much to borrow money to buy a house than it does to rent the same kind of house. Worse, total owner costs including taxes, maintenance, and insurance are about 9%, which is three times the cost of renting. Put in the numbers for your own area here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/2007_BUYRENT_GRAPHIC.html?ref=patrick.net)

[2] Salaries cannot pay for current house prices. This means house prices must keep falling or salaries must rise much faster. You probably noticed that your salary is not rising much, and that inflation in food, energy, and medical care has been very high. This leaves less money available to pay for housing. A safe mortgage is a maximum of 3 times the buyer's yearly income, but most mortgages are well beyond that. Anyone who buys now will suffer losses immediately, and for the next several years at least, as prices keep falling.

[3]Prices disconnected from Gross Domestic Product (http://www.housingbubblebust.com/Fed/GDPvsHSG.html). The value of housing in the US depends a lot on the value of what the US actually produces.

[4] Buyers borrowed too much money and cannot pay the interest. Now there are mass foreclosures, and senators are talking about taking your money (http://patrick.net/housing/contrib/nobailout.html) to pay for your neighbor's McMansion, even though no one in the US has been made homeless by foreclosure. In fact, forclosed owners end up far better off: they go reap large savings every month, since it costs less than half as much money in rent as they were paying to "own" the very same thing. Banks happily loaned whatever amount borrowers wanted as long as the banks could then sell the loan, pushing the default risk onto Fannie Mae (taxpayers) or onto buyers of mortgage-backed bonds. Now that it has become clear that a trillion dollars in mortgage loans will not be repaid, Fannie Mae is under pressure not to buy risky loans and investors do not want mortgage-backed bonds. This means that the money available for mortgages is falling, and house prices will keep falling, probably for 5 years or more. This is not just a subprime problem. All mortgages will be harder to get.
A return to traditional lending standards means a return to traditional prices, which are far below current prices.

[5]Interest rates increases. When rates go from 5% to 7%, that's a 40% increase in the amount of interest a buyer has to pay. House prices must drop proportionately to compensate. The housing bust still has a very long way to go. For example, if interest rates are 5%, then $1000 per month ($12,000 per year) pays for an interest-only loan of $240,000. If interest rates rise to 7%, then that same $1000 per month pays for an interest-only loan of only $171,428.
Recent lower Fed inter-bank lending rates do not directly affect mortgages rates, nor do extra Fannie or FHA guarantees. The 30-year fixed mortgage rate actually went up after the Fed's rate cut, on expectations of higher inflation caused by the Fed.
Also note that unlike the last few years, most lenders now require a 20% downpayment. That will eliminate many buyers from the market, driving down prices.

[6]Extreme use of leverage. Leverage means using debt to amplify gain. Most people forget that losses get amplified as well. If a buyer puts 10% down and the house goes down 10%, he has lost 100% of his money on paper. If he has to sell due to job loss or an interest rate hike, he's bankrupt in the real world. It's worse than that. House prices do not even have to fall to cause big losses. The cost of selling a house is 6%. On a $300,000 house, that's $18,000 lost even if prices just stay flat. So a 4% decline in housing prices bankrupts all those with 10% equity or less.

[7]Shortage of first-time buyers. High house prices have been very unfair to new families, especially those with children. It is literally impossible for them to buy at current prices, yet government leaders never talk about how lower house prices are good for pretty much everyone, instead preferring to sacrifice American families to make sure bankers have plenty of debt to earn interest on. Every "affordability" program drives prices higher by creating more debt for buyers to use. To really help Americans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be completely eliminated. The government keeps prices unaffordable through programs that increase buyer debt, and then pretends to be interested in affordable housing. No one in government except Ron Paul ever talks about the obvious solution: less debt and lower house prices. The real result of every "affordability" program is to keep you in debt for the rest of your life so that you have to keep working. Lower house prices would liberate millions of people from decades of labor each.

[8]Surplus of speculators. Nationally, 25% of houses bought the last few years were pure speculation, not houses to live in, and the speculators are going into foreclosure in large numbers now. Even the National Association of House Builders admits that "Investor-driven price appreciation looms over some housing markets."

[9]Fraud. It has become common for speculators take out a loan for up to 50% more than the price of the house he intends to buy. The appraiser goes along with the inflated price, or he does not ever get called back to do another appraisal. The speculator then pays the seller his asking price (much less than the loan amount), and uses the extra money to make mortgage payments on the unreasonably large mortgage until he can find a buyer to take the house off his hands for more than he paid. Worked great during the boom. Now it doesn't work at all, unless the speculator simply skips town with the extra money.

[10]Baby boomers retiring. There are 77 million Americans born between 1946-1964. One-third have zero retirement savings. The oldest are 62. The only money they have is equity in a house, so they must sell.

[11]Huge glut of empty housing. Builders are being forced to drop prices even faster than owners. Builders have huge excess inventory that they cannot sell, and more houses are completed each day, making the housing slump worse.

[12]The best summary explanation, from Business Week: "Today's housing prices are predicated on an impossible combination: the strong growth in income and asset values of a strong economy, plus the ultra-low interest rates of a weak economy. Either the economy's long-term prospects will get worse or rates will rise. In either scenario, housing will weaken."

Sorry for the massive block of text. You can also read the original. I look forward to all the reasons that IT'S DIFFERENT HERE! (Edited for easier reading, woot!)

Midnight Son
04-18-2008, 04:22 AM
Who disagrees that house prices will continue to fall?

Real estate related businesses disagree, because they don't make money if buyers do not buy. These businesses have a large financial interest in misleading the public about the foolishness of buying a house now.

1. Buyers' agents get nothing if there is no sale, so they want their clients to buy no matter how bad the deal is, the exact opposite of the buyer's best interest. Agents take $100 billion each year in commissions from buyers. Agents claim the seller pays the commission, but always fail to mention that the seller gets that money from the buyer. Think about it: who brings the money to the table - the seller or the buyer? All money comes from buyers. No buyer, no money.

If a stock broker were to charge 6% on the sale of stock, he would quickly go out of business. Real estate brokers don't do much more than stock brokers, so why should you give up nearly two years of your working life earning money to pay a realtor for the few hours they may put into helping you buy or sell a house? 6% of the 30 years it takes to pay off a house is 1.8 years of donating your working time to your realtor.

There are good buyer's agents who really believe they are helping the buyer, but they're in denial about their conflict of interests. Author Upton Sinclair had a great explanation for this: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

2. Mortgage brokers take a percentage of the loan, so they want buyers to take out the biggest loan possible. Even worse - mortgage brokers get paid according to how BAD the deal is for the buyer. The worse the deal is (higher interest rate, points, fees, etc) the more the mortgage broker gets!

3. Banks get origination fees and then sell most mortgages, so they do not care about the bankruptcy of borrowers. They will lend way beyond what buyers can afford because they lose nothing if the buyer defaults. Banks sell most loans to the government agencies Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The conversion of low-quality housing debt into "high" quality Fannie Mae debt with the implicit backing of the federal government is the main support for the housing bubble. That is ending as Fannie Mae shrinks.

The other way for banks to dump the risk of loan default has been the Wall Street market for mortgage backed securities. Now that mass foreclosures have eliminated the subprime portion of the loan-resale market, banks are under pressure to increase loan quality.

4. Appraisers are hired by mortgage brokers and banks, so they are going to give the appraisals that mortgage brokers and banks want to see, not the truth. Appraisers that kill a deal by telling the truth do not get called back to do other appraisals.

5. Newspapers earn money from advertising placed by realtors, lenders, and mortgage brokers, so papers are pressured by that money to publish the real estate industry's unrealistic forecasts, and to avoid the fatal words: "prices are falling". Instead, we may sometimes hear about "softening" or "easing" prices, which sounds so pleasant. At worst, you may hear about a "housing slump", but you will never hear the mainstream press talk about a crash in prices.

Worse, realtors have a near-monopoly on sale price information, and newspaper reporters never ask realtors hard questions like "how do we know you're not lying about those prices?" The result is an endless stream of stories reporting that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) says it's a good time to buy. Asking the NAR about housing is like walking into a used car dealership and asking the salesman if today would be a good day to buy a car.

6. Owners themselves do not want to believe they are going to lose huge amounts of money.


I guess those two posts pretty much sum everything up nicely. Thanks, patrick.net.

WarrenM
04-18-2008, 04:27 AM
It's different here.

Midnight Son
04-18-2008, 04:30 AM
It's different here.

Damn you! *shakes fist*

And get off my lawn!

:)

wildpokerman
04-18-2008, 04:50 AM
They aren't making more land!

Robert Sharp
04-18-2008, 05:08 AM
Seriously, though, this really does depend on where you are looking to buy. I think the points raised are great, overall, but far more applicable in some areas than others. As usual, local research should rule out, but I think these points are worth keeping in mind (except point 9. WTF does that have to do with whether YOU should buy a house?)

Hans Lauring
04-18-2008, 05:10 AM
What a terrible system you guys allowed to grow around buying and selling property. Yay free market!
(ie it is different here)

Midnight Son
04-18-2008, 05:17 AM
Seriously, though, this really does depend on where you are looking to buy. I think the points raised are great, overall, but far more applicable in some areas than others. As usual, local research should rule out, but I think these points are worth keeping in mind (except point 9. WTF does that have to do with whether YOU should buy a house?)

Point 9: Fraud is one of the reasons prices got to be so high. Artificial inflation.

(Artificial inflation.... hmm, like a boob job!)

Robert Sharp
04-18-2008, 05:33 AM
Oh, I get that. I just think it's become exceedingly rare now. It's not like YOU have to get more on the loan than the house is worth, too. If it's just an explanation for why houses got so high, fine. But I don't see how that's directly relevant to why you should or shouldn't buy a house right now. All you need to know is whether houses you are thinking about buying are overpriced. The why is fairly irrelevant.

Ben Sones
04-18-2008, 05:43 AM
It's different here.

Here, too. Our mortgage payment is lower than what we'd be paying in rent for a similar-sized apartment or house (especially once you factor in the interest deduction). There was never really a housing bubble in Rochester, though. Prices have risen in the past ten years, but at a very moderate rate. We don't have a glut of empty housing here, either--especially in this part of the city, which is a popular area. Houses don't go up for sale too often in our neighborhood, and when they do, they are never on the marker for more than a week or two.

Moore
04-18-2008, 06:54 AM
That calculator thing told me I'm better off buying the house we just bought in December. My mortgage + insurance + $150 a month for minor maintenance is less than my old rent, and I had a 16% downpayment and our rate is pretty low. Not sure why anyone would buy a house without a downpayment, obviously its going to be better to rent if you'd have to borrow the entire cost of the house and housing prices arent rising. My rent was going up the max per year (10%) and that thing said if they just went up 4% I'd be better off buying.

Fugitive
04-18-2008, 06:55 AM
Different here too, albeit in a different country entirely. Although 'cooling', (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/17/realestate.html) prices continue to go up, just less so than before. I do wonder if there's going to be a subtler 'crash' at some point in the future though, as people realize that they need to sustain a dual-income household in order to hold on to their current house, and start looking for alternatives once they want to start a family or reduce their risk.

For now, single guys are just screwed, I guess.

Midnight Son
04-18-2008, 06:55 AM
Oh, I get that. I just think it's become exceedingly rare now. It's not like YOU have to get more on the loan than the house is worth, too. If it's just an explanation for why houses got so high, fine. But I don't see how that's directly relevant to why you should or shouldn't buy a house right now. All you need to know is whether houses you are thinking about buying are overpriced. The why is fairly irrelevant.

Robert, the fraudulent price is built in. Think about it: the asking price of a house is in part based on the comps. If the comps are inflated by fraud, you'll be directly paying that increase. It's going to take a few years for that to be washed out.

Omniscia
04-18-2008, 07:19 AM
Around here, there's been a recent glut of congregate housing ("affordable" senior apartments) projects, with no end in sight. The developers get all sorts of nice perks and incentives to put them up, pay less in impact fees, and often receive density and height-restriction waivers, because it's ostensibly for the benefit of fixed-income senior citizens. It's eating up all the open space.

There are plenty of houses on the market here, none of which are selling, and more go up every day.

Charles
04-18-2008, 07:21 AM
I need to start adding "Final Word" to my threads as well. God forbid someone argues on the internet.

Midnight Son
04-18-2008, 07:28 AM
I need to start adding "Final Word" to my threads as well. God forbid someone argues on the internet.

If you got any facts that will overcome the Final Word, I'd like to hear them. Arguing just for the sake of arguing is not going to get it done.

Charles
04-18-2008, 07:49 AM
If you got any facts that will overcome the Final Word, I'd like to hear them. Arguing just for the sake of arguing is not going to get it done.

You think I read your thread?

Tortilla
04-18-2008, 07:50 AM
I'm loving the irony of Midnight Son getting pissed off because someone else jumped into his thread to make a snarky one liner post that didn't contribute anything.

Midnight Son
04-18-2008, 07:57 AM
I'm loving the irony of Midnight Son getting pissed off because someone else jumped into his thread to make a snarky one liner post that didn't contribute anything.

Here's a snarky comment: Fuck You.

Midnight Son
04-18-2008, 07:57 AM
You think I read your thread?

No, stay an idiot.

Dirt
04-18-2008, 08:41 AM
A conforming loan in CA will never drop to be 3 times a person's yearly income.

Charles
04-18-2008, 08:41 AM
No, stay an idiot.

Well, I live in Canada... so it's different here.

Midnight Son
04-18-2008, 08:43 AM
Well, I live in Canada... so it's different here.

Ok, eh.

Omniscia
04-18-2008, 08:46 AM
It's true. I saw Nanook of the North.

Anaxagoras
04-18-2008, 08:48 AM
Seriously, though, this really does depend on where you are looking to buy.

Good point, Robert. Where I am, these 12 points are definitely valid: our housing prices haven't fallen at all yet, although they have plateaued.... so renting still looks like the best option for me. From what I hear from my relatives in Cleveland, it's a pretty good time to buy out there right now. Well.... as good as it ever is to buy out there.

Reldan
04-18-2008, 09:25 AM
In the very first point the author states what appears to be a falsehood, or at least some numbers that do not seem even close to accurate around here (the Midwest).

Yearly rental rates are only 3% of purchase price? Where is this true? This is saying that you can rent a quarter million dollar house for $625 a month. You can't even rent a slum apartment in this town for $625 a month.

Rental rates are typically closer to 5% or 6% around here.

Bill Dungsroman
04-18-2008, 09:51 AM
It's not different here, FWIW.

antlers
04-18-2008, 10:48 AM
It's not different here, FWIW.

Speculative investment in the Las Vegas market has made it the epicenter of the housing crash. Most of the 12 points seem exaggerated in other places; I don't think 25% of home sales were to speculators anywhere else (much less on average nationally).

SlyFrog
04-18-2008, 12:45 PM
Out of curiosity, how do you make those renting calculators work if you are looking at the types of houses for which there is little to no rental market?

Anaxagoras
04-18-2008, 12:47 PM
Out of curiosity, how do you make those renting calculators work if you are looking at the types of houses for which there is little to no rental market?

Numbers out the ass, my friend.

Aleck
04-18-2008, 12:48 PM
Rental rates are typically closer to 5% or 6% around here.

That's true here, too (DC area), which makes it difficult to make much of a profit on rentals, but doesn't necessarily mean that real estate is a lousy long term investment right now.

The comment re: no one being made homeless by foreclosures is inaccurate, incidentally. At least, according to my wife the social worker who works with homeless folks.

Moore
04-18-2008, 01:02 PM
Right, well, if I spent all my money and borrowed a quarter million dollars I couldnt pay back I'd be homeless too.

bloo
04-18-2008, 01:10 PM
I have to warp things pretty good on that calculator for it to be better to rent more than 2 years.

Shadarr
04-18-2008, 01:19 PM
Here, too. Our mortgage payment is lower than what we'd be paying in rent for a similar-sized apartment or house (especially once you factor in the interest deduction). There was never really a housing bubble in Rochester, though. Prices have risen in the past ten years, but at a very moderate rate.
The crash is a direct result of the bubble. If there was no bubble in a given market, there won't be a correction because there's nothing to correct. You might get affected slightly by national factors like stricter lending standards or higher interest rates, but if your market has remained sane over the previous 10 years it's unlikely to dip just because California and Phoenix are correcting.

shift6
04-18-2008, 03:26 PM
Sorry for the massive block of text. You can also read the original. I look forward to all the reasons that IT'S DIFFERENT HERE! (Edited for easier reading, woot!)
It's different for me, here! ;)

1. My rent on a 1bd/1bt apartment is currently $750 a month/$9K per year. In this same area of town where I'm looking to buy, 3bd/2bt homes are going for $150K-170K. That's 6%, twice the author's 3% guess. On one of his follow-up pages, he mentions that it's 3% in San Fran. So yay for cherry picking one of the highest-priced areas and presenting it like some reasonable median.

2. My current salary is about $50K per year. See home prices above. Therefore, I would be in what the author calls a "safe mortgage" at approximately three times my current income.

3. This looks to me, based on the very link the author posted, as an ongoing trend. Should someone wait a decade or two for optimal price vs GDP considerations? Low on the relevance scale.

4. I disgaree with the author's assessment and market call on this one. For one thing, there are plenty of investors who want mortgage backed bonds since bond prices (par) generally reflect efficiencies in par vs. coupon quicker than Blahggy McBlahgALot can write up a witty reparte ten months after the fact. I am not at work so I don't have flow figures into mortgage bonds accessible right now, though. I admit I could be wrong (although I still disagree with his long term view).

5. This is a false correlation. And I'm curious about his math in preferring to get a home loan at 8% instead of 6.5% (or whatever).

6. This "issue" is a concern in any market. No one wants to put 10% down, have the home value fall, then lose their job all at once. And talking about a sale "bankrupting" someone who has less than 10% equity in? That's some serious hyperbole.

7. Incorrect. See my previous links concerning, for instance Cleveland, where many first-time home buyers are taking great advantage of cheap prices.

8. This "issue" is also always a concern, no matter the market. Big whooptie do.

9. Not seeing how this makes it a bad time for me to buy.

10. Although I disagree with some of his generalizations, this is probably a legitimate concern; but only to the extent that one's area is a haven for people near retirement. In other words, how many 60-year olds live here? And if one lives in a giant McMansion, isn't that the kind of place retiring boomers are going to want to buy, causing prices to go up? (answer: yes). So I'll give full credit to point 10, with the caveat that it depends on the area.

11. Yes, but they have mostly stopped building more over the last six months, so the glut is already largely accounted for in an efficient market sense. If they were still building after some federal government bailout or something, I'd agree with this point.

12. I'd be curious which issue of Business Week printed this statement. Was it sometime in the summer/fall of 2007? Because prices are down upwards of 40-50% since then in many areas, so it's an outdated evaluation.

---

I hate blogs where they don't date their posts. Anyway it turns out alot of this information is pretty outdated.

Here's an archive.org link showing substantially the same page (different layout though) from March 2007 over a year ago. Notably, that Business Week quote is in it also, meaning it too is way out of date in terms of immediate relevance.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070306211539/http://patrick.net/housing/crash.html

And an archive.org link showing almost exactly the same page.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070819101034/http://patrick.net/housing/crash.html

Meaning best case scenario, this guy's info is eight months (eight very difficult months in which substantial corrections have occured) out of date. So again thanks for the info Midnight Son, there were a couple good nuggets in there, but color me unimpressed.

Midnight Son
04-18-2008, 03:32 PM
That's quite alright. Personally, I'm waiting for Case-Shiller to bottom out for a period of months. If I were buying something, I mean.

Sebmojo
04-18-2008, 04:15 PM
Interest rates are pushing 11% in NZ. Sympathy - limited.

Shadarr
04-18-2008, 05:09 PM
5. This is a false correlation. And I'm curious about his math in preferring to get a home loan at 8% instead of 6.5% (or whatever).
I think he's assuming that in a market where price is determined by affordability, higher interest rates would correlate to lower prices, because buyers would still only be able to pay the same monthly payments. It makes logical sense, but I think it assumes the real estate market is more short-term efficient than it actually is. I think psychology and momentum are much more important drivers.

Bill Dungsroman
04-19-2008, 12:31 AM
Speculative investment in the Las Vegas market has made it the epicenter of the housing crash. Most of the 12 points seem exaggerated in other places; I don't think 25% of home sales were to speculators anywhere else (much less on average nationally).

Pretty much. The people I got my condo from practically gave it to me. Then again, the reason I had to get it was because I had to GTFO of the house I had, but hey!