total implosion of the u.s. real estate market

Quote from Jayford:

Guys,

Bottom line is that prices are so out of line with reality, that there HAS to be either:

A severe drop in prices,

or an increase in income. This is for the really inflated markets of course. I'm in Cal so it applies here.

There has been a very stable income to mortgage ratio for about 40 years. It's now running double that in inflated markets. Revert to the mean. It will happen, period.

So what is worse, a quick and ugly drop in prices, or a flat line for a decade? Think it can't happen? The last Cal RE crap out took 7 years to work out in the early 90's, and that bubble wasn't even close to this one. And then if we go into recession....

Its barely begun folks.
Good post, if not debatable.

I ask again though, how many other ETers are buying foreclosures? I've seen stuff in the Midwest go for 40% below appraisal value while needing very little turn-around refurbishing. Every market has options for making money. Where there is an exchange of money, there is a way to make money. And that's just it, banks just want their money back asap, and most realtors aren't interested in showing houses that will soon be put up on the chopping block, especially when they need new carpet, paint & minor drywall repairs. Plus, add in the number of quality homes on the market that aren't selling at the premiums wanted by home owners. In my opinion this housing market is just a new take on the old adage "Buy low..." Not to mention, buying a foreclosure for your personal home isn't a bad idea either. Especially considering that a fixed rate loan is still close to historic averages, and half of what it was in the 1980s. The current availability of quality foreclosed homes is exponentially larger than the norm, and probably will continue for at least the near future, but they won't be around forever...
 
some forecast price drops of 50 percent in markets like vegas and miami and parts of cali

Considering 30-40% drops are already in place in parts of CA, 50% would mean we're very near the bottom.

So, big effing deal.
 
Quote from Smart Money:

Thats what I'm saying. Prices ran so high from 2003 to 2005 that even though they backslid some, it still doesn't matter. I have townhouses purchased in 2003 to 2004 that are still up over 50%, even though they've recently dropped back a little. And with the dollar getting creamed, you still can't build one at that cost because labor and materials are up.

SM

Exactly. It is now possible in certain area to pick up new construction below builder cost. I am interested to hear how the fundamentals will not support prices at that level.
 
Quote from vacation:

Considering 30-40% drops are already in place in parts of CA, 50% would mean we're very near the bottom.

So, big effing deal.

we're not near the bottom; not in Cali anyway. Cali would be an importnant country, let alone state, so when Cali takes the pipe the impact will ripple through the country.

we will be near the bottom when people are swearing off real estate and bragging about the benefits of renting over home ownership.

i still think we could see foreign buyers ala Japanese c. 1988-1989 hit select markets such as Seattle, S.F., Vancouver B.C., etc.
 
Quote from QQQBALL:

we're not near the bottom; not in Cali anyway. Cali would be an importnant country, let alone state, so when Cali takes the pipe the impact will ripple through the country.

we will be near the bottom when people are swearing off real estate and bragging about the benefits of renting over home ownership.


They already are.

And it depends on where you are in Cali. The outer edges of the desirable areas have already imploded and are being sold off at below cost to build. I believe those areas are near bottom. The "name brand" areas are still holding on, but I can't imagine they can hold on forever when you can get 3x the square footage for a lower price 20 minutes away.
 
.

October 25, 2007

SouthAmerica: I knew that the new Bankruptcy law of 2005 was a bad deal for the US economy.

Here it is just one of the unintended consequences of that fiasco.



********



Business Week – October 29, 2007

“Bankruptcy Reform Bites Back”
For consumers, debt relief is harder to come by. And that's adding to housing woes
By: Christopher Farrell

Score one for the law of unintended consequences.

In past periods of economic turbulence, American households were able to escape mountains of bad debt—and keep their homes—by declaring bankruptcy. During the weak growth years from 2001 to 2003, for example, nonbusiness bankruptcy petitions averaged roughly 1.5 million per year. Lenders complained bitterly that bankruptcy was too easy, but because financially stressed Americans could write off their credit card and other consumer debt, they had more money available to pay their mortgages.

But today's growing problem in the housing market is different—foreclosures are soaring, while bankruptcies, though clearly on the upswing, are running roughly at half the 2001-2003 pace. The reason: A new bankruptcy law, approved by Congress in 2005 after years of debate, makes it much harder for households to get out from under their consumer debt. The result: More people being forced to walk away from their homes, leaving lenders holding the bag. Perversely, a law intended to help the financial industry may be damaging the housing sector, creditors and borrowers alike. "It doesn't matter what you think of the purpose of the new bankruptcy law. The timing is bad," says Susan M. Wachter, professor of real estate at the Wharton School of Business.

The old bankruptcy law, in effect since 1978, was considered extremely housing-friendly. Most distressed borrowers favored filing under Chapter 7, essentially cheap, quick debt liquidation. In practice, most got to keep their homes, while the rest of their property and assets were sold off to pay a portion of unsecured debts such as credit-card and medical bills. When the assets ran out, the remaining loans were cancelled—although some debts were off limits, like student loans and child support. Future paychecks could go to mortgage payments.

By contrast, the new law was designed to protect creditors. For one thing, only low-income borrowers can file for Chapter 7, which wipes out debts. The amended law pushes more people into Chapter 13, which forces households to accept 3-5 year repayment plans on all debts—secured and unsecured. In other words, they're still trying to make payments on car, credit card, medical, and other bills that used to be discharged in Chapter 7. That makes meeting the mortgage more onerous. Filing for Chapter 13 temporarily halts foreclosure proceedings, but the protection only lasts as long as the borrower is making mortgage payments.

But even low-income subprime borrowers aren't escaping the new law. In theory, Chapter 7 is still available, but the new law hiked the cost of going bankrupt in order to discourage the practice. Under the old law, the average cost of filing for Chapter 7 was about $800 to $1,400 in attorney and other fees, according to Henry J. Sommer, president of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. He estimates that the cost is now up to roughly $1,400 to $2,400. That's a hefty price tag.

Another problem: Under current law, bankruptcy courts don't have the option of reducing the payments on the mortgage for a primary residence. That means anyone who took out a subprime loan is stuck, unless they want to walk away. "If you file for bankruptcy, you don't get relief on the mortgage," says Michelle J. White, an economist at the University of California at San Diego.

Recent bills introduced in the House and Senate would allow judges to adjust unaffordable mortgages downward. That change—if Congress wants to reopen the 2005 law—could transform bankruptcy into a more practical option when dealing with mortgage lenders.

But at least for now, the impact of the 2005 law is to make the housing slump worse. And that means it could take a lot longer than many expect for the economy to regain its footing.


Source: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_44/b4056080.htm?chan=search

.
 
Quote from GaryN:

One thing Ive been thinking about is Las Vegas real estate. They import almost all of their water and the country is facing a water shortage. If Las Vegas water supply is ever threatened what would happen to real estate values there?


Nothing will happen. They will put a hose in Wayne Newtons swimming pool and suck all the water out.
 
Very interesting. Seems there's still a lot of denial about the real estate crash. Thus, a LOT more downside to come.
 
Quote from StavrosW:

I echo this. However, I don't think NYC real estate will see much of a decline, from a residential level.

From a rental perspective, NYC has one of the tightest vacancy rates in the country at sub 1%, with future population forecasts that are staggering. Anyone who is a renter in NYC knows what effect this has had in the past, and what effect it will continue to have in the future. if cap rates widen, rent growth will outpace any negative widening effect.

From an ownership perspective, I am doubtful you'll see a decline there too. NYC is continuing to become a wealthier city, thus higher condo prices at the hands of higher demand. Brooklyn used to be a place for starving artists. It's now a place for well fed bankers looking for a little bang for their buck. You'll see slower growth, but with a healthy economy in NYC, and continuing growth, I don't see any meaningful decline.

The commercial space is where I would be most concerned. Office space and retail space in particular. Wider cap rates, landlord incentives, and lower rents will push values here.

NYC prices are a rip off.
 
Back
Top