There have been several housing-related reports this week, some better than others, so analysts have been reading the entrails to determine whether the housing market is finally starting to hit bottom and turn around. The answers are mixed — some regions are doing better than others — but we still seem to have a ways to go before the national market stops falling and begins to pick up in any meaningful way.
Yves Smith had a helpful post yesterday summarizing many of the reasons to be skeptical of the more optimistic take from Bloomberg. From Yves:
Even though some distressed markets have seen an upsurge in speculative buying (my Florida locals expect much of current activity in that state to come to tears, given the massive number of foreclosures in the pipeline), the fundamentals are not at all rosy. Nick Timiraos of the Wall Street Journal pointed out, as others have, that the “inventories are tight” picture is misleading. Even though banks have put houses on the market, a lot of private sellers are holding back, still (after 5 years) hoping for a better market. And servicers slowed down new foreclosures and attenuated foreclosures while the mortgage settlement negotiations were on. They have sped up new foreclosures considerably, which will eventually show up in the liquidation of more homes . . .
Yves also provides a helpful presentation by Josh Rosner which is worth flipping through (about 13 pages). Yves notes:
One of the useful parts is on pages 6-9, where he debunks “new household formation means higher housing prices.” This series shows that the age groups with the largest numbers of households among them are in the 35 to 64 year old cohorts. Home ownership is already high in those age groups. And as we have discussed, home buying among the young is constrained by high levels of student debt. Rosner also suggests that financial pressures on new retirees (inadequate pensions and savings, rising health care costs) will lead them to try to sell their homes, either to downsize or to rent, when they would otherwise have remained in their homes.
She then points us to the most recent Case-Shiller index numbers, so for that, let’s go over to those wonderful charts at Calculated Risk.
There are several related stories there, the first showing the new home sales annual rate in March was still only about 328,000 — better than before but way below normal. The second explains/illustrates the “distressing gap” between sales of existing homes (better) and sales of new homes (still awful); that’s not normal, as the two usually track each other closely.
Then we get to the reports on the Case-Shiller and similar indices. These show that nationally, housing prices are still falling, albeit slowly. Overall they reached post-bubble lows in February, though prices increased in some of the regions/markets included in the index.
Finally, Calculated Risk gathers links/quotes from other analysts who believe we’re at or close to the bottom.
It’s worth walking through all of the accompanying graphs to the stories, which clearly show the huge housing price bubble, the huge collapse, and the still uneven attempts to level off. There doesn’t seem to be any unmitigated good news there, but we’re starting to see more optimistic views.





7 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
DDay would be proud. You’re carrying the torch for him very well.
Great comprehensive post. We have a lo-o-o-ng way to go.
Mid-Hudson did not experience as large a bubble-crash as many other areas of the country. Housing construction, alas, has resumed.
However, along with that, the for sale signs on existing houses have sprouted like mushrooms in the past 6 months. Either or both bc seller wannabes can’t hang on any longer and/or they think the market has bottomed.
I suspect the additions of supply to the market at this late stage of the cycle are not unique to my area, and will keep prices down for a meaningful time longer.
Economist friend whose work I respect said that it takes about 7 years for HHs to recover from debt overhang. She got that approximation from studying other countries’ experiences. 07+7=14.
What can I say. I bought my [first] house 7 years ago at age 59 and in that period of time it’s gone in value (according to my tax assessment which just arrived) from $140,000 to $114,000. Which makes me almost under water on my mortgage. I don’t care about that, because this is not an investment property but where I plan to live out the rest of my days, but it does reduce net worth and what I can leave to whoever is in my will.
For what it’s worth, this is a 1400 square foot house on a slightly over 1/4 acre lot in an extremely stable neighborhood. New construction, because the lot had been vacant for years, so the reduction in value isn’t because the roof is about to fall in…
My 2 RE purchases were close to impeccable in timing wrt market value, unlike yours. Still come to your same conclusion. Buy low, buy high, what diff does it make if it’s your home and you can afford the monthly charges.
Tanta a CR pushes optomisism. Yves is more of a realist. CR brings us the USG reposts and others. I take it all with a grain of salt. Your regulatory backbone is valued das well. Short of it: a shrinking middle class means fewer homeowners. Lower average prices.