Hey real estate moguls - what’s going on in the housing market?

[Satoshi 129]

17 hours ago, Deej said:

This.

 

12 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Many reasons have already been posted as to why real estate has become so unaffordable but by far the most concerning issue is the incredibly concentrated wealth in a small number of people.

The wealthiest people in this country can buy almost all of the desirable real estate, and are now doing so via much more aggressive investment vehicles. 

We are hurtling towards being serfs on the lands of the ultra rich.  Wait until all of the newly minted ultra rich Chinese come back in and buy it all over the next twenty years. 

If one were a conspiracy theorist, you could almost say that’s part of the plan. 
 

This is a deleted tweet from a small fringe group of non influential people. 
 

 

[tbone_ 14158]

You could own the stocks of the companies that own everything.

[Satoshi 129]

18 hours ago, Paper_jam said:

I don't know much about economics (I took Micro as an elective 30 years ago) but can you explain to me, in the simplest terms, how Fed policies make housing more expensive? When people buy homes, it seems to me that money is coming primarily from their wages, and in some cases inherited wealth. Have wages increased that much, and if so, is that really driven by the FR?  Or do you mean the real estate market reacts to low interest rates by jacking up prices, because people buy based on monthly payment and not total cost?

By keeping interest rates artificially low, the prices of homes go up as people can afford to borrow more to buy them.  
 

Perhaps more importantly, zero interest rate policy and quantitative easing have lead to general asset inflation (stocks, crypto) and increased concentration of wealth. This capital is then available for real estate purchases. It’s part of the “wealth effect” that the Fed has openly pursued. 
 

Combining those two things, zero interest policy also makes it difficult to produce returns on the increase wealth that people now have. Instead of treasuries or other corporate bonds that they would traditionally purchase they’re searching for other places to generate yield/returns. Real estate has been a big part of that. See:  Blackrock buying rentals all over the country. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Satoshi

[crash_davis 23115]

15 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

By keeping interest rates artificially low, the prices of homes go up as people can afford to borrow more to buy them.  
 

Perhaps more importantly, zero interest rate policy and quantitative easing have lead to general asset inflation (stocks, crypto) and increased concentration of wealth. This capital is then available for real estate purchases. It’s part of the “wealth effect” that the Fed has openly pursued. 
 

Combining those two things, zero interest policy also makes it difficult to produce returns on the increase wealth that people now have. Instead of treasuries or other corporate bonds that they would traditionally purchase they’re searching for other places to generate yield/returns. Real estate has been a big part of that. See:  Blackstone buying rentals all over the country. 

that's the dilemma. low interest rates makes the economy go BRRRRRR. no administration wants to be the one administration to slow growth. slow econ growth means losing at the polls.

low interest rates for a decade drives inflation and re-allocation of investment dollars, or somesuch.

[Incredulity 11683]

1 minute ago, crash_davis said:

low interest rates for a decade

2 decades

[closetohumping 17464]

19 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

I know I’m pissed that my damn property taxes keep going up.

That's the beauty of living in california.  Prices go up but my taxes stay the same age.

[The Dog 44138]

18 hours ago, gmr548 said:

1.) The fundamental issue in the housing market is simple supply and demand. Development of new housing took a long time to recover after the great recession, and did not recover in many places. The result is we are millions of housing units short of demand as the largest generational bloc in the population is squarely into homebuying age, even after delays due to student loan debt burden, low early career wages due to the recession, and social factors like delaying marriage and children. Demand > supply.

IMHO this is the correct answer and everything else is noise. 

Supply - as mentioned, new housing starts after the "great recession" were historically low and remained low as the excess inventory was sold. We didn't even hit the number we were at immediately before the recession until around 2015 - nearly six years after the recession. Usually housing starts recover much more quickly. Just as housing starts were starting to recover the pandemic hit and builds ground to a halt. The pace of housing starts has resumed to the pre-pandemic levels, but now supply chain issues are limiting how many new homes can be built. On top of that, many Boomers and Generation Xers are still occupying their homes and aren't ready to sell, so that also drives the market for both new homes and resales as there simply aren't as many sellers. 

Demand - after the "great recession" demand for single family housing plummeted. Millennials and older generation zs perferred to rent early on. However, now that many Millennials are now at child-rearing age (and have the disposable income and savings to buy) demand for housing started to creep up. Then the pandemic hit, and people discovered that lockdowns in an apartment SUCKED and decided that maybe having a house wasn't such a bad thing, so now people who originally had not thought about owning a home now are in the market for one.

A lot of people talk about interest rates, but those were kept low in an attempt to stimulate demand that was historically low. Now that demand has recovered interest rates should continue to creep back up and that will tamp down on demand. The fundamental supply issue won't be resolved until the supply chain issues recede. 

Housing historically ALWAYS becomes a bubble eventually, but we may not even be at equilibrium yet so that appears to be a ways off. There will be a bubble that will burst but right now the fundamentals support the prices we're seeing IMHO.

[tbone_ 14158]

2 decades

Rates have been steadily declining since 1986. So 3.5 decades.

[Incredulity 11683]

16 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Rates have been steadily declining since 1986. So 3.5 decades.

True.  Pos rep

[Dbeasy 15091]

2 hours ago, Satoshi said:

By keeping interest rates artificially low, the prices of homes go up as people can afford to borrow more to buy them.  
 

Perhaps more importantly, zero interest rate policy and quantitative easing have lead to general asset inflation (stocks, crypto) and increased concentration of wealth. This capital is then available for real estate purchases. It’s part of the “wealth effect” that the Fed has openly pursued. 
 

Combining those two things, zero interest policy also makes it difficult to produce returns on the increase wealth that people now have. Instead of treasuries or other corporate bonds that they would traditionally purchase they’re searching for other places to generate yield/returns. Real estate has been a big part of that. See:  Blackstone buying rentals all over the country. 

Yes. This has had a huge effect in the short-term, and is the main reason for the massive uptick in real estate prices in the last year. 

Combined with continued massive deficit spending, and monetary policy to protect the stock market, etc rather than let the market float more freely (bond purchases, etc), the concentration of wealth is now way worse than it was just ten years ago.

That wealth is now buying up huge swathes of large tracts of land, not to sell houses to the public, but to rent out. Real estate is different than a typical luxury item. Everyone must have a place to live.

 

[Homercles 10206]

20 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

That wealth is now buying up huge swathes of large tracts of land, not to sell houses to the public, but to rent out.

[Satoshi 129]

 

[Chewbacca 7783]

4 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Not sure if anyone addressed the looming foreclosures as well - between 250k-500k are looming 

Then there are concerns about contagion with the Chinese RE market.  They have hundreds of massive firms that are propped up ala Lehman's on unicorn farts and pixie dust.  Evergrande is only one.  They're in the middle of a mother fucker of a bubble right now and China can't bail out them all.  Many domestic firms have serious contagion issues (Black Rock, etc).

They have too little demand in areas that were/are overbuilt.  Forced urbanization never works as intended.  

Why would there be foreclosures right now?  If you can't pay the mortgage, you sell because the value of the house has increased.  

[BabaYaga 15318]

18 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Why would there be foreclosures right now?  If you can't pay the mortgage, you sell because the value of the house has increased.  

Expiration of the moratorium

[midtown 3348]

What no one has mentioned is two things.

A.  Home ownership in general is a terrible investment unless you happen to live in a hot market.  Most people do not know how to calculate ROI.  I think some people are starting to figure this out.  

B.  The newer generation has less and less desire to own homes.  This changing mindset will cause a slow domino affect in general housing over the coming decades IMO.  People will have trouble moving up the home ownership ladder if there are no buyers for their starter homes.  

[BabaYaga 15318]

15 minutes ago, midtown said:

What no one has mentioned is two things.

A.  Home ownership in general is a terrible investment unless you happen to live in a hot market.  Most people do not know how to calculate ROI.  I think some people are starting to figure this out.  

B.  The newer generation has less and less desire to own homes.  This changing mindset will cause a slow domino affect in general housing over the coming decades IMO.  People will have trouble moving up the home ownership ladder if there are no buyers for their starter homes.  

Down payment amounts (attractive to sellers) are also a barrier to entry (Conventional vs Govt financing).  That being said, it's still the more prevalent path of wealth savings for most.  

[Chewbacca 7783]

35 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Expiration of the moratorium

I get that, I'm just saying those houses will go up for sale, they won't be foreclosed, except in rare circumstances.

[midtown 3348]

18 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That being said, it's still the more prevalent path of wealth savings for most.

You sound like a realtor.     When the average return in the US on homeownership, which in the majority of cases is not ever unlocked until death, is something like 2.5%.   Not sure how that is wealth savings for anyone.

Edited October 27, 2021 by midtown

[BabaYaga 15318]

16 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

I get that, I'm just saying those houses will go up for sale, they won't be foreclosed, except in rare circumstances.

We'll see

[Chewbacca 7783]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

We'll see

Why would houses that can be sold for a profit go into foreclosure?  

[Telegraph_it 3359]

43 minutes ago, midtown said:

A.  Home ownership in general is a terrible investment unless you happen to live in a hot market.  Most people do not know how to calculate ROI.  I think some people are starting to figure this out.  

This x 1,000. Hearing my coworkers talk about how much return they are making on their home is humorous. 

[Chewbacca 7783]

1 minute ago, Telegraph_it said:

This x 1,000. Hearing my coworkers talk about how much return they are making on their home is humorous. 

There will always be a place for renters.

[Neonmoon 38130]

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/96221/homeownership_and_the_american_dream_0.pdf

Quote

Finally, we turn to the financial benefits of homeownership. Using national data since 2002, the internal rate of return to homeownership is quite favorable compared to alternative investments, even during a period where home prices suffered the worst shock since the Great Depression. While this result does not depend only on favorable tax treatment, tax subsidies certainly help increase the financial benefits of homeownership. Of course, these results vary with the timing of the purchase, the holding period, and location. Returns to homeownership have been less favorable in locations such as Cleveland and Chicago relative to metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, Dallas, and New York. We then consider other risks and benefits to homeownership not taken into account in our basic model. Homeownership does not seem to impair mobility across metropolitan areas during recessions. As well, homeownership appears to help borrowers accumulate housing and nonhousing wealth in a variety of ways, with tax advantages, greater financial flexibility due to secured borrowing, built-in “default” savings with mortgage amortization and nominally fixed payments, and the potential to lower home maintenance costs through sweat equity. However, the ability to build wealth through homeownership is dependent on holding on to the home during downturns; lower-income and minority borrowers are less likely to maintain homeownership through the cycle, and thus benefit less from homeownership

 

[fattyflattie 4638]

1 minute ago, Telegraph_it said:

This x 1,000. Hearing my coworkers talk about how much return they are making on their home is humorous. 

Maybe they are selling and NOT living somewhere now. Ever thought of that smart guy?   
 

Not going to lie, I’ve asked the wife more than once if we can take the equity we’ve gained and live in the RV until this shit settles down.  Don’t think she understands what a few hundred thousand in instant cash can open up but it’s been a hard no. 

[Telegraph_it 3359]

8 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Maybe they are selling and NOT living somewhere now. Ever thought of that smart guy?   
 

Not going to lie, I’ve asked the wife more than once if we can take the equity we’ve gained and live in the RV until this shit settles down.  Don’t think she understands what a few hundred thousand in instant cash can open up but it’s been a hard no. 

The humorous part is how simple most people look at it. I bought home for X. It is know worth Y and I only owe Z. Subtract something here, add this there, and wow I made $XYZ. Not exactly that simple. 

Still if you bought in Houston or Austin or Dallas (or numerous other locations) in the past few years you are doing better than renting. 

Edit: I have said the same thing to my wife. Let's sell the house, take the equity, and live in one of our families' vacation homes for a year or so before kids are old enough to be in school. 

 

10 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

There will always be a place for renters.

Absolutely. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Telegraph_it

[BabaYaga 15318]

1 minute ago, Chewbacca said:

Why would houses that can be sold for a profit go into foreclosure?  

You're assuming a steady increase in prices.  You are also forgetting the huge numbers of home that have had their foreclosures "paused".  The SECOND they come out, the banks can take the house follow your strategy and sell it themselves.  Even if you can sell, remember the banks are going to slam you with legal fees, late fees, processing fees, foreclosure fees, and they will eat up every dime of the potential equity.  No doubt there are huge opportunities for investors, but to think everyone across a multitude of markets can just sell isn't going to bear out.  Of those that do sell (from the bank), they often also sell under market, driving prices even lower.  

Then you have forbearance.  You are behind, trying to get back square, but in arrears by thousands.  If you were one of the many in govt or low down pmt loans with little equity, you are equally screwed.  To your earlier point, there is much less incentive for the banks to renegotiate as they can sell for more than your owed note, perpetuating the cycle mentioned above.  

Some banks made billions off screwing homeowners during the previous crash.  They're not your friends.  

[BabaYaga 15318]

12 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Maybe they are selling and NOT living somewhere now. Ever thought of that smart guy?   
 

Not going to lie, I’ve asked the wife more than once if we can take the equity we’ve gained and live in the RV until this shit settles down.  Don’t think she understands what a few hundred thousand in instant cash can open up but it’s been a hard no. 

That's a big problems for many as well.  They have all this equity on paper, but if they sell, and if they have a family, where do they move to?  Further out?  Maybe.  But for many the realized gains don't bear out.  You can leverage the equity via loans, but now your monthly payments go up.  

[Chewbacca 7783]

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

You're assuming a steady increase in prices.  You are also forgetting the huge numbers of home that have had their foreclosures "paused".  The SECOND they come out, the banks can take the house follow your strategy and sell it themselves.  Even if you can sell, remember the banks are going to slam you with legal fees, late fees, processing fees, foreclosure fees, and they will eat up every dime of the potential equity.  No doubt there are huge opportunities for investors, but to think everyone across a multitude of markets can just sell isn't going to bear out.  Of those that do sell (from the bank), they often also sell under market, driving prices even lower.  

Then you have forbearance.  You are behind, trying to get back square, but in arrears by thousands.  If you were one of the many in govt or low down pmt loans with little equity, you are equally screwed.  To your earlier point, there is much less incentive for the banks to renegotiate as they can sell for more than your owed note, perpetuating the cycle mentioned above.  

Some banks made billions off screwing homeowners during the previous crash.  They're not your friends.  

What areas have not seen a run up in real estate prices the past 2-3 years?  I don't know of any.  Prices are up everywhere, and they are up in a big way in a lot of places.  The only people who are going to get foreclosed on are those too dumb to know they can sell and pay off the loan.   Most are going to just sell.

[tbone_ 14158]

You sound like a realtor.     When the average return in the US on homeownership, which in the majority of cases is not ever unlocked until death, is something like 2.5%.   Not sure how that is wealth savings for anyone.

I get the math. It’s also in my best interest as an apartment developer to promote it.

What I find from personal experience is having a landlord is a fucking beating. You can’t dial your place in the way to want it and when shit breaks you are at their mercy to get it fixed, which probably won’t be your way. In addition, you can’t control if they decide to sell and kick you out. I think for many there are benefits of not having to deal with those issues that don’t show up in the numbers.

Also I think from a practical standpoint owning a home is some level of forced savings that might not happen for everyone renting.

[Chewbacca 7783]

14 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

The humorous part is how simple most people look at it. I bought home for X. It is know worth Y and I only owe Z. Subtract something here, add this there, and wow I made $XYZ. Not exactly that simple. 

Not exactly that simple, no, but you have to have a roof over your head.  That needs to be accounted for as well (call it rent, or whatever).  Once that's included in the calculation then owning looks a lot better.  No rent increases.  Stable housing environment for a family, Capital appreciation (which is the biggie for most).  All strong reasons to own.  Obviously the big unexpected costs (like roofs, windows, furnaces, etc) are drawbacks.  

[dcar00 14360]

1 hour ago, midtown said:

You sound like a realtor.     When the average return in the US on homeownership which in the majority of cases is not ever unlocked until death is something like 2.5%.   Not sure how that is wealth savings for anyone.

"Hey its always a great time to buy and sell!"

[BabaYaga 15318]

23 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

What areas have not seen a run up in real estate prices the past 2-3 years?  I don't know of any.  Prices are up everywhere, and they are up in a big way in a lot of places.  The only people who are going to get foreclosed on are those too dumb to know they can sell and pay off the loan.   Most are going to just sell.

Like I said, we'll see.  As of June, you had close to 8 million facing FC or eviction.  Between the end of the original moratorium and July, you saw default/FC claims go up 34% almost overnight before the extension by the CFPB.  The VAST majority will sell, but many that were in FC when the moratorium was initiated will be unable to.  We're talking about loans that were in default prior to the moratorium re-enter the foreclosure pipeline.  Then you have delayed filings by the states, which is another matter

 

[dcar00 14360]

32 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That's a big problems for many as well.  They have all this equity on paper, but if they sell, and if they have a family, where do they move to?  Further out?  Maybe.  But for many the realized gains don't bear out.  You can leverage the equity via loans, but now your monthly payments go up.  

further out is the no brainer.  IMO, the key is to have it paid off by the time you are ready to downsize if you want to stay in the same general area.  

it is forced savings with some potential upside and you have to watch how much you are willing to put into a house based on the market value.

say you live in house 30 years that isn't built new(1-2 roof, 2-3 A/C's, siding if not all brick/windows once, 2 water heaters).  depending on the size of the house that could be 60K to 100K.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

That's a big problems for many as well.  They have all this equity on paper, but if they sell, and if they have a family, where do they move to?  Further out?  Maybe.  But for many the realized gains don't bear out.  You can leverage the equity via loans, but now your monthly payments go up.  

This was my problem. I built a house in a desirable area and started the contract/build pre-Covid. During the amazing run up, from the time I contracted and the time closed, the equity gained (albeit the build time was a protracted and delayed due to Covid and early supply chain issues-- think 10-11 months vs. 4-6 average) was nearly $225k. Wife and I flirted with the idea to just close, take possession and then immediately sell and net $200k or whatever and chalk it up to, for once in our lives, being lucky and gaining good fortune blindly.

But then upon further investigation, where do we live? Any another home we engage will just be the $225k higher and it's simply a reshuffling the cards in the deck, unless you move out of state or 2 hours away from a metro area. Ultimately didn't make sense to flip and moving in to a home we knew we would somewhat like (we chose all the variables in the new build, after all) and having the equity in our back pocket while watching the market develop was less risky to us.

All that to say, I think these are interesting issues and complex problems and fascinating times and am enjoying the RE professionals perspectives here.

[midtown 3348]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

RE professionals perspectives here

So you're interested in the perspectives of a bunch of ex-bartenders?   Realtors are insurance and car salespeople rolled up into one.   To think they have an idea of the complexities of the housing market and the micro and macro economics is hilarious. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

6 minutes ago, midtown said:

So you're interested in the perspectives of a bunch of ex-bartenders?   Realtors are insurance and car salespeople rolled up into one.   To think they have an idea of the complexities of the housing market and the micro and macro economics is hilarious. 

I absolutely was not talking about realtors (no offense to the california realtor gil who is the exception to the rule). I'm talking about RE knowledge workers as RE professionals extends to bankers and analysts who work for bulge brackets and boutique finance, too, right? You should know this; you are in NYC right? Unless midtown means Houston in which case, well, speaking of hilarious...

Edited October 27, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[jimmyjazz 46128]

I'd like a little more flavor on the "poor ROI" argument.  Let's say my house payments (PITI) are $24K per year.  If the value of my house increases $24K, I "broke even" for that year.  (I am purposefully not accounting for down payment, etc., because my main point follows.)

The thing is, I have to pay for housing, one way or another.  How should I account for the (say) $18K per year rent I would have paid had I not owned a house?  To me, it comes off the $24K.  In reality I "invested" $6K that year.

I certainly agree that there is some risk involved in home ownership -- if the market tanks, I either sell, perhaps at a loss, or just keep on paying inflated prices relative to the market each month, whereas a renter could conceivably strike a better deal when the lease is up.  Beyond that, though, I'm really curious as to how the ROI on home ownership is "2.5%" (if that was a serious number).

[GhostOfTomJoad 9351]

45 minutes ago, midtown said:

So you're interested in the perspectives of a bunch of ex-bartenders?   Realtors are insurance and car salespeople rolled up into one.   To think they have an idea of the complexities of the housing market and the micro and macro economics is hilarious. 

The bar manager at our local watering hole is a realtor (part time) so this hits close to home. She's got a heart of gold, a hard work ethic, runs a tight bar, has a great ass..and is "bless her heart" upstairs. She's helped a couple of barflies buy/sell over the years, but she's not smart enough to make money in this market. But nobody's complaining about the cold beer or great ass.

[tbone_ 14158]

So you're interested in the perspectives of a bunch of ex-bartenders?   Realtors are insurance and car salespeople rolled up into one.   To think they have an idea of the complexities of the housing market and the micro and macro economics is hilarious. 

Believe it or not there are people in the real estate industry other than those that help you buy or sell a house.

[Jkwellborn 6734]

So you're interested in the perspectives of a bunch of ex-bartenders?   Realtors are insurance and car salespeople rolled up into one.   To think they have an idea of the complexities of the housing market and the micro and macro economics is hilarious. 

That was pretty aggy way to think. They can absolutely have that understanding. They may not and in reality, they probably don’t give two shits, but it’s possible.

[fattyflattie 4638]

We have a few pretty good ones on this site, iirc.  

Edited October 28, 2021 by fattyflattie

[JohnnyRage 1617]

On 10/26/2021 at 4:17 PM, Deej said:

Seems like it will drive those that can work remotely to buy homes in shitty Midwestern towns.

I looked up home prices in the podunk town in Minnesota my people come from. 5/3 with 3000 square feet, built 100 years ago with hand carved wood staircases and built in cabinets for $125k. 

Yeah don't confuse Texas Metro areas with other parts of the country. There are hot spots indeed, but there are still mostly areas hurting.

Edited October 28, 2021 by JohnnyRage

[workswithseed 2110]

16 hours ago, midtown said:

What no one has mentioned is two things.

A.  Home ownership in general is a terrible investment unless you happen to live in a hot market.  Most people do not know how to calculate ROI.  I think some people are starting to figure this out.  

B.  The newer generation has less and less desire to own homes.  This changing mindset will cause a slow domino affect in general housing over the coming decades IMO.  People will have trouble moving up the home ownership ladder if there are no buyers for their starter homes.  

This sounds like something a bicyclist would say.

 

[Bookman 4642]

16 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Why would houses that can be sold for a profit go into foreclosure?  

Because the banks make more money that way.

[TwiceHorn 31535]

16 hours ago, midtown said:

What no one has mentioned is two things.

A.  Home ownership in general is a terrible investment unless you happen to live in a hot market.  Most people do not know how to calculate ROI.  I think some people are starting to figure this out.  

B.  The newer generation has less and less desire to own homes.  This changing mindset will cause a slow domino affect in general housing over the coming decades IMO.  People will have trouble moving up the home ownership ladder if there are no buyers for their starter homes.  

There is some evidence/studies that indicate that even a good housing investment can be beaten by modest renting and good investment in the market.

A lot of variables, for sure, but from a purely financial standpoint, home ownership is not all that it has been cracked up to be.

There may be other reasons that government and powers that be want more people in homes.  Whether those reasons are good for the people in the homes is less clear.

[gmr548 16614]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is some evidence/studies that indicate that even a good housing investment can be beaten by modest renting and good investment in the market.

A lot of variables, for sure, but from a purely financial standpoint, home ownership is not all that it has been cracked up to be.

There may be other reasons that government and powers that be want more people in homes.  Whether those reasons are good for the people in the homes is less clear.

This. Whether or not homeownership is a "good investment" is a highly individualized question and it's difficult to answer broadly.

[Snake Diggity 4627]

Sure, for someone who has the required discipline and knowledge to wisely deploy capital elsewhere, home ownership might not be a great investment.  But for the vast majority of people, it is the best way to accumulate any kind of meaningful wealth, between forced savings and the cost of alternatives (renting).

[BabaYaga 15318]

16 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

This was my problem. I built a house in a desirable area and started the contract/build pre-Covid. During the amazing run up, from the time I contracted and the time closed, the equity gained (albeit the build time was a protracted and delayed due to Covid and early supply chain issues-- think 10-11 months vs. 4-6 average) was nearly $225k. Wife and I flirted with the idea to just close, take possession and then immediately sell and net $200k or whatever and chalk it up to, for once in our lives, being lucky and gaining good fortune blindly.

But then upon further investigation, where do we live? Any another home we engage will just be the $225k higher and it's simply a reshuffling the cards in the deck, unless you move out of state or 2 hours away from a metro area. Ultimately didn't make sense to flip and moving in to a home we knew we would somewhat like (we chose all the variables in the new build, after all) and having the equity in our back pocket while watching the market develop was less risky to us.

All that to say, I think these are interesting issues and complex problems and fascinating times and am enjoying the RE professionals perspectives here.

This illustrates another issue that the housing market is going to have to reconcile:  affordability.  This is a very obvious and clear barrier to entry to many, many people.

[BabaYaga 15318]

15 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'd like a little more flavor on the "poor ROI" argument.  Let's say my house payments (PITI) are $24K per year.  If the value of my house increases $24K, I "broke even" for that year.  (I am purposefully not accounting for down payment, etc., because my main point follows.)

The thing is, I have to pay for housing, one way or another.  How should I account for the (say) $18K per year rent I would have paid had I not owned a house?  To me, it comes off the $24K.  In reality I "invested" $6K that year.

I certainly agree that there is some risk involved in home ownership -- if the market tanks, I either sell, perhaps at a loss, or just keep on paying inflated prices relative to the market each month, whereas a renter could conceivably strike a better deal when the lease is up.  Beyond that, though, I'm really curious as to how the ROI on home ownership is "2.5%" (if that was a serious number).

A house is a fantastic investment if you need a house.  As part of a longer-term,  diversified portfolio, it's a must.  If you hop around a lot, there's an argument for renting.  Long-term, it's much harder to make.

As for payments on ownership vs renting, the equity gains are hard to dismiss right now.  Nor can you make blanket statements about the markets and returns in general.  If there is not a geo-specific component to one's point, then there is no real point.  Here in N. Dallas, like others the appreciation is insane.  Access to this cheap capital is easy as well.  A line of credit paid for our pool a few years back, then we quickly paid down the line, increased it with no draw, and now have another avenue to cheap and easy access to capital if needed.  We will probably use that as DP money for another cabin in Broken Bow or another area that's sizzling for short-term rentals.  Then we pay the line back down quickly as we did before.  

['stache 21864]

On 10/26/2021 at 3:08 PM, gmr548 said:

2.) Affordable suburban lifestyle is an illusion. Beyond America being in a historically unique macroeconomic situation in the second half of the 20th century, postwar suburban/car-centric development is the most resource and capital intensive development model out there. The health and environmental impacts are enormous. It took massive policy intervention and subsidy to create what we think of as normal. An energy hogging single-family home with an irrigated landscape in a car based development that requires you to drive everywhere should be expensive relative to more efficient options, which is difficult to deal with because the entire population has lived their life within this model at this point, and human beings do not do well with big paradigm shifts like that.

 

So much of fucking this, and those of us living in the city are paying taxes out the ass to subsidize the roads and utilities and suffering from the pollution for their cheap lifestyles and need to drive fucking everywhere.

I'd add that the suburbanization era resulted in the belief that anything less than 3500 sq. ft. detached single family home past the age of 30 is a sign of failure. We (or the olds rather) zoned the fuck out of everything and literally made it illegal to build anything but detached single family homes or massive apartment complexes. Keep the "poors" (i.e., anyone who lives in an apartment not to mention the racial element to avoid cr'ing the topic here) completely separate from the rest of us. Most cities have made it illegal to build duplexes, quadplexes, townhomes, or any type of mid size housing that would provide some density and affordability. My area of town has some of this but all of them are old as shit and built before this zoning era made them iillegal to build. Just last week our city council passed a zoning amendment that made it easier to build this type of housing in the neighborhoods in and around downtown. The NIMBY's are of course losing their shit because how dare my neighbor build a garage apartment and let one of those poors live on the street for less than $1000 a month. It's fucking infuriating. I'm hoping to have some money saved up in a few years to start investing in this type of housing to encourage people to move back to the city and provide enough density that small businesses can start opening up on corners that can be accessed by walking or cycling a short distance instead of having to drive 2-4 miles just to buy a bottle of milk or get your drycleaning.

Edited October 28, 2021 by 'stache