Another Chronicle Cover Story -- only with a different tone
The Sunday Chronicle had another Kelly Zito article, this time with a headline spanning 3/4 of the cover of the paper. It usually takes the beginning of a war or the death of a president to get that much space on a cover devoted to one topic.
"HOUSING -- JUST COOL OR GOING COLD?"
Strangely enough, with the exception of a couple of the usual quotes from guys like Ed Leamer at the UCLA Anderson Forecast (who has been claiming that we were all going to the poorhouse since 1999), the article is amazingly upbeat and realistic. Knowing the lead times on articles, I will take no credit whatsoever after my posting on Friday for this change in attitude.
Click the link above and read the entire article for yourself. She put in some nice 25 year graphs showing exactly what I continue to refer to, that the market is strong and continues on an upward path, even through the roughest of markets, and has its usual downward blips in the Dec/Jan timeframe.
Some of the highlights:
• "At the end of the last two major housing booms in the early 1980s and 1990s, prices in most areas did not collapse."
• "On the coasts, you see price run-ups, and then instead of having large price declines, you have mild declines and flattening for a period -- it's what you'd call a stylized fact of the industry," said Andrew Leventis, economist at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the overseer of mortgage titans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
• "On the other hand, affordability indexes don't present the full picture. For one, roughly three-quarters of all home buyers in California are trade-up buyers who can spin equity into down payments on bigger, pricier houses."
• "...even in a slackening market, sellers often resist losing money on a property or simply not making as much as the Joneses next door. Sometimes that can mean sales volumes will decline, but prices will stay resilient; it's a phenomenon that could play out as this cycle wears on."
• "San Francisco may have more of a chance to not have a severe (correction) because it's so hard to build here," said UC Berkeley's Rosen. "The difficulty in putting on new supply protects home prices from big adjustments."
• "A tight supply of available land and housing supply is one hallmark of what Columbia University real estate professor Christopher Mayer calls a "superstar city," one in which price declines are relatively rare."
And there you have it... Lots of people who admit they really don't know what is going to happen, but look at things a bit more positively than we've seen in a while. And all of this goes back to supporting my post on Friday. It's a nice, balanced market out there right now, and from where I'm watching, it doesn't look like it's going to drop any time soon.

5 Comments:
Here's my favorite quote from the article:
"According to DataQuick, the typical Bay Area home buyer committed to a monthly mortgage payment of $2,867 in December. Meanwhile, the average apartment rent in the region in the fourth quarter was just over $1,324, according to RealFacts, a Novato firm that tracks the rental market.
To some, that discrepancy is yet another sign of an overvalued purchase market.
'There's a disconnect between the fundamental value of the asset and the value the market is producing,' said Ed Leamer, director of the prestigious Anderson Forecast at UCLA. 'It's just like the dot-com period.'"
Here's my second favorite quote, even though the figures are not adjusted for inflation (showing a full 6 and one-half years of stagnant house prices; how'd you like to buy a house today at twice your rent, plus a downpayment, and have it be the same price in the summer of 2012?):
"The next cycle saw a more striking correction. The median Bay Area home price crested at $225,000 in January 1990, then dipped as low as $205,000 -- almost 9 percent -- before climbing to $229,000 in the middle of May 1996, according to DataQuick, which releases a monthly report based on county recorder data on new sales. The drop was steeper when adjusted for inflation over the years of the downturn."
Here's my third favorite quote (interesting how everybody loves that houses are "sticky", or relatively illiquid, until they have to sell one; this factor is barely emphasized only in the last paragraph, where it would have been nice to mention that *nobody* may be interested in your house when the market is faltering):
"Stickiness
Money poured into a home is unlike any other investment -- people are loathe to make less on a sale than their neighbors.
In official economic parlance, that's called 'stickiness.'
In other words, even in a slackening market, sellers often resist losing money on a property or simply not making as much as the Joneses next door. Sometimes that can mean sales volumes will decline, but prices will stay resilient; it's a phenomenon that could play out as this cycle wears on.
'We love our homes -- we don't love our shares of GM or Microsoft,' Leamer said. 'We have a personal valuation of the home because of a vague understanding of the marketplace.'
In a booming market, buyers love your home more than you do, Leamer said. But in a downturn, you love it more than they.'"
So, Jack, don't buy a house now. Leave the inventory for those that aren't worried about the doom and gloom. There's not enough inventory in San Francisco to go around, anyhow...
There are plenty of people out there buying right now that will be happy to not have you competing for their purchases, and who will be more than happy to have a home that won't be subject to evictions, landlords who can't afford to maintain their buildings, or the whim of the Supervisors.
And yes, you can always find some negative data to support your point, just as I can always find positive data.
My clients and I would all much rather be homeowners, thank you very much.
Matt -
You're right - I'm not going to buy a home now because the inventory will be much improved in the future. More choices, more sellers - generally, a lot more options a few years down the road.
Your statement also points out that there could be less competition then, for the mania of the last few years has pulled a lot of demand into the present or recent past from the future. I don't expect that situation can be sustained.
I am very optimistic wrt SF, as for the record I am not a "doom and gloomer" - I leave that to those who don't question the political whims of those you call the "Far Left 7" (or whatever you call them) of the City Supervisors.
And I'm sorry, what you call "negative" - I see as "positive."
Just like this article:
"In the Bay Area of California, a typical family that buys a $1 million house - which is average in some towns - will spend about $5,000 a month to live there, according to the Times analysis. The family could rent a similar house for about $2,500, real estate records show, and could pay part of that bill with the interest earned by the money that was not used for a down payment.
This gaping difference helped persuade Eloise Christensen to sell her century-old Victorian cottage in downtown Larkspur, Calif., for $1.05 million this year. Now she rents a two-story house in Stinson Beach for $2,400 a month. From her living room, she can sip tea and watch the waves from the Pacific Ocean."
From:
"Is It Better to Buy or Rent?"
By David Leonhardt - New York Times
September 25, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/dwwqo
Or:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/25/realestate/25cov.html?ex=1143345600&en=de711efe83526259&ei=5087&excamp=GGREbuyingvsrenting
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home