Sunday, June 28th, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Affordability + Rate Graph
This plots the same SD affordability ratio (in red) and the Freddie Mac average 30-year mortgage rate for June (in blue) on the same graph.
I don’t know if it means anything, other than to recognize that this is the first time since 1980 that BOTH factors are near their lows at the same time. Sellers, in particular, should take heed.
Posted on Sunday, June 28th, 2009 at 10:02 AM in Thinking of Buying? | 36 Comments » | 
Print
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Good morning to all of you geniuses.I still think areas along the coast are way overpriced.Seems like most of the activity is in the lower price range.People are looking for bargains.
arizonadude | June 28th, 2009 at 10:23 amWhere is the “affordability” index coming from? Actual affordability (in terms of price to income) is not yet close to “normal”, or whatever the historical average would be. What is this index based on?
Nick | June 28th, 2009 at 10:43 amone issue to remember is just how many homes were sold in 2004 to 2006. The # of homes sold just in San Diego county averaged 50,000 per year. In those 3 years, that would have been 150,000 folks that sold at the peak. How many of those same owners actually bought immediately after they sold?
If 60% purchased immediately, that means 40% of those home owners kept their windfall and rented. That translates to 60,000 people with a lot of down payment. After 5 years of renting and CD rate at less than 3%, a lot of them are itching to get back to home ownership.
ocrenter | June 28th, 2009 at 10:46 amNick,
It’s the same line from Friday’s Harvard study.
Their data is linked at bottom of this post:
http://www.bubbleinfo.com/2009/06/sd-priceincome/
Jim the Realtor | June 28th, 2009 at 10:49 amJim, you’re turning into CR and I like it!
dafox | June 28th, 2009 at 12:20 pmMy realtor told me she is combing through obituaries looking for business.Is this common business practice?I am really offended by her ways.She said if she doesn’t sell a home this month she was going to quit the business.
arizonadude | June 28th, 2009 at 12:33 pmHey Jim. Long time fan, first time commenter…
It has struck me for awhile that people are for some reason or another much too hung up on *NOMINAL* mortgage rates. Where the focus should be is on *REAL* mortgage rates (i.e., nominal rates minus CPI). Plot that and you’ll be surprised… as low as rates may now seem, they’ve actually very rarely been so high on a nominal basis. Do the same analysis, but instead use Mish’s “Case-Shiller adjusted CPI” and it’ll freak you out.
Have a good one and can’t tell you enough how much I appreciate your blog.
BZ
Bizzle | June 28th, 2009 at 12:52 pmocrenter,
Yes, that’s also an interesting question, although IMHO I’d suggest that less than 5% cashed out and rented (if even that much). Most that did cash out moved out of state to retire on their windfall elsewhere.
You simply couldn’t have anywhere close to 40% cashing out and sitting without it dramatically affecting both the sale & rental markets at the time.
tj and the bear | June 28th, 2009 at 1:27 pmWith the banks able to borrow new money from the Fed at less than 1%, mortgage rates really ought to be in about the 3% range. With all of this gov’t intervention, how about finding a way to get funds to borrowers in in the 1-3% range–talk about stimuating things!
Local Boy | June 28th, 2009 at 1:37 pmLocal Boy,
The problem is the term, not the rate. The Fed is lending short, so if the banks lent that money for mortgages it would also be short (i.e., ARMs). Too much risk to borrow short and lend long, which will become all too apparent as rates creep up on the GSEs.
So, why aren’t they that low on ARMs? Primarily because the banks know that borrowers would be unlikely to withstand a sudden upward move in rates -and- the banks don’t want to own any more property, so the margin & fees (as well as qualifications and down) have to reflect that.
tj and the bear | June 28th, 2009 at 2:34 pmJim,
Do you happen to have historical affordability numbers specifically for the tonier areas — RSF, La Jolla, etc.?
tj and the bear | June 28th, 2009 at 2:36 pmRates are really spurring demand but buyers don’t really have much pricing power.
FYI, I generated a San Diego version of the trustee sale charts using ForeclosureRadar, you can really see the very heavy investor activity happening. At the very least investors think there is an opportunity to make some money buying wholesale (trustee) and selling retail (MLS):
http://effectivedemand.blogspot.com/2009/06/san-diego-trustee-sales-june-2009.html
Effective Demand | June 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pmTJ,
I suspect you’re right. I’d guess less than 5% (as a SWAG) actually “cashed out” with the ability and intent to purchase again.
Many people who “cashed out” went and blew it on junk. For most people, money burns a hole in their pocket.
Chuck Ponzi
Chuck Ponzi | June 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pmocrenter, Chuck,
I’ve put the question of bubble-seller disposition to CR; perhaps he can dig up something interesting.
tj and the bear | June 28th, 2009 at 3:33 pmCR’s response:
TJ and The Bear, I can’t think of a good source for that type of data. The answer in 2004 and 2005 is very few homeowners sold and moved to renting – because the number of renters was declining and the number of homeowners rising. I think that started to change in 2006.
tj and the bear | June 28th, 2009 at 3:48 pmA slew, and by that I mean thousands upon thousands who sold during the bubble bought back east and now live in bigger and newer homes with no or very little mortgage. How many from SD don’t know. The whole state had sellers who did this.
Tens of thousands or more.
JimB | June 28th, 2009 at 3:58 pmI just wish there were more than a dribble of sales on the high end so the median price curve meant anything. If you are not an investor (and I use that term loosely cause I think people falling over themselves to buy rental pads in near vacant exurbs will be in a world of hurt soon) would you buy the homes being sold to live in?
I am continually learning something new watching this bubble deflate.
LV Renter | June 28th, 2009 at 4:45 pmJimB,
Yeah, and that’s not good for sales going forward, since (1) they aren’t coming back and (2) the people that bought their homes were mostly “temporary” homeowners using toxic mortgages. Homeownership peaked at over 69% during the bubble and has already reverted back to 2000 levels (and still declining).
CR’s chart: U.S. Homeownership Rate
tj and the bear | June 28th, 2009 at 4:50 pmThe other factor here is S.California economy. I wish I could say I see employment here getting better when the recovery starts.
But I’m not sure SD will do anything other than stay flat. Companies won’t touch this place with a ten foot pole and the new blood (young folks)is moving out..
The city had better do something and do it right now.
JimB | June 28th, 2009 at 5:08 pmCR posted on ocrenter’s question…
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/06/how-many-homeowners-sold-to-rent-at.html
tj and the bear | June 28th, 2009 at 5:10 pmThe city had better do something and do it right now.
Secede from California?
tj and the bear | June 28th, 2009 at 5:11 pmocrenter,
Another factor to consider in your hypothetical is how many of those sales were by flippers or simply new construction? I imagine there were probably quite a few. In other words, there probably weren’t 150,000 family’s looking for houses after each sale.
On the flip side, how may people who bought during the bubble are now living rent free in a home that the bank won’t foreclose upon? If they didn’t put much down (and how many put more down than the equity they’ve already lost?!?) and they still have their job(s), they could be in a position to do a buy and bail.
One thing that I think will come out of this, in the not too distant future, will be a more detailed micro view of housing at different strata. This will be especially important in larger areas like San Diego and Los Angeles, where there are such variations from one neighborhood to the next. Reputable realtors can give some insight, but how many realtors have the time to do this for more than a few specialized areas. As more and more people do their house hunting online, the statistics available there will get better and better. That could help us someday to avoid the irrational exuberance that lead to the bubble. There are too many numbers thrown around that lend little insight. Who cares what the average income is for a city or neighborhood if it’s not going to be broken down into renters and owners?! I’m hoping that there will be readily available sources for this type of useful(!) information in the not too distant future. It could help put to rest the meme of “Buy now or be priced out forever!”
Ronald McMansion | June 28th, 2009 at 5:34 pmOcrenter,
What happened to your blog? I used to read it everyday.
Stump Barnes | June 28th, 2009 at 6:00 pmConversely from JimB’s point of the outbounders, many incoming buyers in the 2005-present era are from more-expensive towns (LA, OC, Bay Area, NYC, etc.) who see SD prices as reasonable, as compared to what they’re used to seeing.
Jim the Realtor | June 28th, 2009 at 6:12 pmDoes anyone have any historical numbers on migration into or out of San Diego? Can’t just use population, as that would involve standard growth.
tj and the bear | June 28th, 2009 at 6:17 pmJimB has a good point; on top of everything else, you always have to keep in mind how bad of a business climate California is, and how many of the jobs which are disappearing now are never coming back. Using the median prices (instead of the median sales prices, which are not very useful because of the skew of sales), we’ve still got another 25% to go before we get to historical norms… but historical norms were established when California was a vibrant, growing, feasible place to have businesses and industry, and without an enormous deficit problem our grossly incompetent “leaders” cannot seem to even acknowledge, much less address. I personally wouldn’t be surprised to see California drop well below historical norms in the next decade, as the state struggles to find the tough-love necessary to repair it.
Nick | June 28th, 2009 at 6:20 pmCareful, Nick, such logic could get you labeled a “permabear”.
tj and the bear | June 28th, 2009 at 6:31 pmI think Ronald McMansion has a great point. During the latter part of the bubble a whole lot of sales activity was flippers finding a greater fool flipper. And a lot of those flippers were holding more than 1 house at a time. The ones that saw the handwriting on the wall and sold off before 2007 probably made a mint.
ArtEclectic | June 28th, 2009 at 6:35 pmThose that made a mint would be rare creatures indeed, since someone had to be holding those houses when the music stopped.
tj and the bear | June 28th, 2009 at 7:05 pmAgree jtr and you would know better than I. Will say that for outbounders are a huge group. UHals number one destination is Dallas tx.
I don’t think as many are moving in as out.
JimB | June 28th, 2009 at 8:04 pm“The answer in 2004 and 2005 is very few homeowners sold and moved to renting – because the number of renters was declining and the number of homeowners rising. I think that started to change in 2006.”
it is hard to make an assumption based on these numbers. here’s why:
let’s take 100 people, 50 are renters and 50 are homeowners.
the 50 renters are given a chance to buy homes with 1% teaser rates, 30 of them took up the offer.
that would bring the renter population to just 20 people and the homeowner population to 80 people. But that didn’t happen.
instead, the the renter population went to 30 people and the homeowner population went to 70 people. reason is of the 30 homeowners that sold, 10 became renters while 20 bought again.
so just because overall the renter population declined does not mean there was not a sizable population of new “temporary renters” that cashed out and waited at the side line.
ocrenter | June 28th, 2009 at 8:39 pmoh, just read CR’s post:
“To answer ocrenters question (somewhat), the number of renters increased by about 1.6million in the 2004 to 2006 period. A large number of those renters could have been homeowners who decided to sell and rent. We just don’t have the data …”
so renter population actually increased in 04 to 06.
so we now have this other possibility. owners sold and simply could not or did not want to return to the marketplace. new first time buyers decided to delay their purchase. end result: two population that would have owned deciding to rent instead, thereby increasing the rental pool.
ocrenter | June 28th, 2009 at 8:43 pm“I don’t think as many are moving in as out.”
I don’t know if that’s true, even now. I seem to recall something about illegal immigration more than making up for the outflow of educated, skilled, and legal workers. That would also jive with the rental statistics, since you’d expect most people working near minimum wage would not be able to purchase a house in SD (especially if they are sending most of their income out of the country anyway). That could be another factor in the rental market.
Nick | June 29th, 2009 at 8:37 amNot as low as tommorrow!
sdbri | June 29th, 2009 at 10:55 am#24 – JTR Comment-
Jim has a very good point–We live in Carlsbad and it seems like half the folks we meet that have relocated have came from LA and The Bay Area–these folks see North OCunty Coastal as cheap–We have came across two who have sold in LA and bought Cash in No County.
Local Boy | June 29th, 2009 at 11:24 amlocal boy, as a former OCer, we definately saw the north county coastal area as just that when we first moved here.
luckily we rented and started to think like the locals and our mentality changed.
ocrenter | June 29th, 2009 at 12:54 pm