Oh, yes, Dorothy, we're in for the ride of our lives...

From a housing blog's April 11th, 2007 entry:

In a conversation with a City Councilman from a city in Riverside County, I was told the following:

New home permits (and associated fees) are down by 64% this year.
Sales tax revenues are down 6% - 8% this year.
As a result, the City is going to slash its budget by 10% which will likely result in layoffs.
It’s different in Riverside County, you know. What is going on there?

IMO, the drop in new home permits is just a sign of the deepening crisis in the housing market. Where is the spring rally? What about all the foot traffic we have been hearing about? If the builders were anticipating renewed strength in the housing market, wouldn’t they be starting on new homes?

IMO, the 6%-8% decline in sales tax revenue is even more alarming. If unemployment is low and everyone is working, why would consumer spending fall off so dramatically? Were the builders and sub-contractors activities accounting for that much of they local economy? What role does the decline in mortgage equity withdrawal have in this decline? Is everyone tapped out? Many of the housing bears have stated the economy is too dependent on real estate and continued Ponzi Scheme borrowing and it is due for a crash. Are they right? A 10% drop in economic activity sounds like a pretty hard landing to me.

Lord Almighty.

Bye bye bye, Sub Prime.

The Beginning of the End of Subprime Lending.

Anyone old enough to read and understand this stuff remembers well enough the junk bond fiasco of the late 80's, and the technology bubble of the late 90's.

We're just about near the late 2000's, and here we are again, with "junk" loans.

This is the beginning of the end. This is exciting times. I can't wait for the bloodshed to ensue.

Of course, I only say this after having gotten out of the market myself.

these silly bubbles

If you're a young working professional (aka a "yuppie"), you've been blessed with having experienced at least 1 1/2 bubbles. The dotcom bubble has faded into bittersweet memory, and right now, the housing bubble isn't sure whether to keep inflating or to pop in many hot markets around the country. Depending on where you were when you were a kid, maybe you might've remembered the casualties and damage from the Japanese economic bubble tailspin.

We know what a bubble feels like, and when we're likely to be in one. But, how is a bubble defined? What's the quantitative description of a bubble?

I've thought about this over the last few days, and believe, for starters, I've found two ways resulting in the same conclusion.

Here's one way of describing it, based on an advanced copy of a book I've just received for review:

EXUBERANCE - How Bubbles are Formed

Stage 1: FUNDAMENTALS change in ways that increase the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE of the asset.



Stage 2: The dramatic increase in SPECULATION of FORWARD ACTUAL PRICE appreciation (as measured by the PSYCHOLOGICAL PRICE ANNUAL CHANGE PCT), that was created in Stage 1 fuels a continued large increase in ACTUAL PRICE well above any continued increases to the EQUILIBRIUM PRICE.

Click here for more examples and supporting data.

And here's a very abridged summary, but well worth-noting, of how notable investor William Bernstein describes it in his timeless tome from 2002, "The Four Pillars of Investing":

The necessary conditions for a bubble are:
- A major technological revolution or shift in financial practice.
- Liquidity - i.e. easy credit.
- Amnesia for the last bubble. This usually takes a generation (Bernstein defines a generation ~ 30 years)
- Abandonment of time-honored methods of security valuation, usually caused by the takeover of the market by inexperienced investors.

So, keep these salient points in mind when wondering whether the current real estate market is in a bubble state.

--------------------------------

One last interesting bit I wanted to tack on before closing this post out. I know there are a few websites out there who've made mention of this without exactly commenting,

Housing Boom! Kenneth L. Fisher 02.26.07

"You can see right through the housing crash story by looking at the prices of housing stocks. The market knows what the economic worrywarts do not, which is that the housing sector is already making a comeback. In the last six months housing stocks are up 24%, well ahead of the overall market. If housing were destined to fall apart in 2007 these stocks wouldn't be so strong now."

"Did you know that housing sales are up in the last few months, not down, and that inventories are lower than six months ago? We're accelerating, not landing. This is true not just in housing but also pretty much across the board."

Whether the current wobbling real estate market is in a bubble or not, the least the quote above does is insult the average investor's intelligence, especially coming from someone who purports to be a leading figure in the investment financial world.

The first problem is, inferring Mr. Fisher's quote, he feels the real estate market is highly liquid, like stocks are. Any serious home-shopper, flipper, investor, and homeowner knows, *as a fact*, that real estate is very obviously illiquid.

The second farce is Mr. Fisher's correlation between homebuilder company valuation and the real estate market. Unfortunately, it seems Mr. Fisher fails to account for the large majority of real estate out there: existing, pre-owned units. I agree that homebuilders attempting to clear inventory are forced to play competitive fit and fiddle with pre-owned comparable homes, but newly-built unsold homes are not the sole, key market driver in real estate (with the exception of master-planned communities that didn't exist until recent mass home-building populated it).

Also, Fisher never specified exactly which type of housing sales are up, and not down, in the last few months? Is inventory lower now than a few months ago because of increased sales volume, demand once again crossing over its equilibrium point with supply? Or is this due to exhausted, frustrated sellers whose listings failed to garner considerable interest?

To be fair, Fisher's focus really seems to be on housing STOCKS vs. the real estate market. The two couldn't be any more different as, say, pricing oil stocks vs. used automotive stocks, for example. The average Joe may automatically associate oil and cars as related, but just because ExxonMobil, Valero, and Chevron are reporting record profits doesn't mean the sum of Toyota, Honda, GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler have a rosy future ahead of them.

personal thoughts on los angeles real estate market

A recent comment from an earlier post reads as follows:

How are things in the california real estate market these days? Is it as horrible as I have read? What do you think if the economic predictions they are forecasting for the next couple of years? Such as the coming recession or maybe even another depression.

My anecdotal take on the immediate greater Los Angeles market: Because median home prices have risen only <10%>10% annual rate between, say, 2001 until 2005, some homeowners, speculators, and shoppers believe that the market is shaping up to tank (although most disagree how long and how hard the "landing" would occur). Yet, due to the most recent month-over-month figures, you have people like the National Association of Realtors declaring perhaps prematurely that the housing market has bottomed out. Many precursors that do point to the beginning of a down market exist: slowing sales, more days listed for many properties, multiple downward asking price adjustments, larger incentives, homebuilder inventory buildup, increasing foreclosures, ARM resets, and the list can drone on indefinitely.

Do remember that all these factors *might* simply be reverting to the long-term mean-- that, since, we experienced one of the most over-inflated bubbles in history, that, maybe these "doomsday" factors aren't necessarily that bad at all. For example, although foreclosures have increased, apparently the foreclosure rate is still lower than the historical mean. An outright ban on non-traditional mortgages would most likely trigger a larger number of foreclosures than the mean. I believe other additional posts are warranted to examine the the real estate bubble and its possible negative consequences.

In any case, for the here and now, as has the term been used to describe general stock market movements, more than anything, I personally feel the real estate market seems to be moving "sideways." San Diego, Orange County have reported 10% drops from list prices of properties, but Los Angeles itself experienced anywhere from a -2% to a 7-10% change, depending on what you read.

One thing to keep in mind is if rate of value descreases gradually snowball and bring prices further downward, the momentum could be somewhat devastating.

thoughts about a preforeclosure auction

I found one aspect of a recent preforeclosure bidding quite interesting: the bid amounts were blind. I asked the auctioneers why. They said it was to promote bid fairness-- they declared it unfair to publish the highest bids since someone could always exploit that information and just place their own bid of "highest bid + $1." Minimizing bid-sniper activity.

Perhaps it was because they didn't wish their customer service staff overwhelmed by last-second calls placing bids crawling up, dollar by dollar, as is usually the case with Ebay bids. I guess I'm still naive to fully understand why this is an issue.

Assuming the auctioneers published a clearly defined cut-off time to accept bids, and the bids were blind, what if Joe Schmoe had performed exhaustive analysis and determined just 5 minutes prior to the cut-off time how much he was willing to offer to buy the place? Let's say the bid would potentially definitely be the best bid the aucioneers would receive. So Joe tries calling his bid in. His phone (or the auctioneer's phone systems) goes ballstic. Cut-off time passes. Joe's still unable to phone through.

I don't see how this situation is ethically or morally different from the "unfairness of published bidding" argument.