Why a Bottom in Housing Is a Long Way Off

(One of the sharpest investors we know, a local financial advisor who is also a close friend and collaborator of economist David Rosenberg, thinks the housing market is nowhere near a bottom. In the essay below, one of several we have presented by the same author, he amply supports his thesis, pausing along the way to draw an insight from the Kodak Super 8 movies that his grandfather used to run in reverseRA)

Over the last few weeks there have been a larger number of articles written about the housing market. The increased volume is probably attributable to recent data showing that home sales have dropped off sharply since the Home Buyer Credits expired. In addition, we are witnessing increasing foreclosures and a general lack of success in mortgage modification efforts. Certainly economic recovery and housing market recovery go hand in hand, so the spin on housing has tended toward the affirmative in most analysis. Most articles place an emphasis on affordability, which is at or near record levels by most measures, as the primary reason for optimism. The primary deterrents to a more robust turnaround (in addition to the unemployment dilemma) are typically identified as more stringent underwriting conditions and a deflationary mindset among qualified buyers, causing them to hold off on making offers.

McMansions like this one are a huge glut on the market these days

What seems to be missing in the analysis is the obvious fact that the overwhelming majority of potential homebuyers also have one to sell. While that has typically been the case, there are several factors that make it substantially more critical to market dynamics now than it has been in the past. When we were experiencing a secular bull market in real estate combined with a secular credit expansion, having a home to sell was an enormous positive because the capital gain on the current home was the source of the increased equity needed to move to a more expensive pad. Between first-time, move-up and second- home buyers, we had a virtuous food chain. Things are much different, post-bubble.

Downsizing Is Where It’s At

I am reminded of my Grandfather and his Kodak Super 8. Many of us Baby Boomers were fortunate to have someone in the family who took movies. We would sit around on the living room floor after dinner and watch past events, with a particular interest in seeing ourselves look funny, or cool. But Grandpa Seeley had created something that we always clamored to watch: a backward movie! It was hilarious and surreal. People filling up Coke bottles with their mouths, cars racing down the street in reverse, Doug emerging from the deep end and landing straight up on the diving board. Of course it was all rather impossible, and the housing market is no different. In order for the housing market to function normally — and this is key — at the margin, there must be a preponderance of first-time and move-up buyers that are willing and able to increase indebtedness to fund the move up. But in the post-bubble reality that we currently face, most market participants, at the margin, wish to downsize.

There are several reasons for this. Most important, during the housing mania, purchases tended to be much more aggressive than would be justified by normal and appropriate shelter requirements. This was because the investment component to home ownership had such enormous allure. Now that it is becoming obvious that prices don’t just go up, most people who overindulged or merely intended to cash out at some point are appropriately interested in reducing their investment exposure.  For a large number of market participants, the desire is acute. Similarly, the supply of first-time and move-up buyers was pulled from the future by the bubble, leaving a vacuum of current candidates. After all, at the peak, creative financing made it cheaper for even the fork-lift operator to own than rent. This was exacerbated by the tax credits extended this year and last.

Deflationary Mindset

Returning to concerns by the pundits over the existence of a developing deflationary mindset, it may be fear rather than opportunism that is keeping potential buyers on the sidelines. That may sound like semantics, but, particularly for first-time buyers, a home purchase does entail substantial mobility risk. Unless prices are appreciating, moves relating both to career change and family size can become too expensive. For the move-up (or down) buyer, putting an offer in before they have a contract on their existing home could end up being a nightmare. During the mania, the passion stirred up by finding that perfect house often clouded judgment enough to ignore the risk of being stuck with two houses. That is certainly no longer the case.

Finally, demographics are a major negative. During the bull market, housing became the retirement investment of choice, not only for Baby Boomers preparing for retirement, but also for current retirees living the dream. Ray DeVoe has always said that Mother Nature seeks out and exploits the hidden flaw. She is a hanging judge. It is therefore understandable that the bubble would burst when the Baby Boomers only had a few short years to go before reaching the finish line. Real Estate Analyst John Woloshin points out that historically 20% of the 65+ cohort rents, but that that percentage is likely to increase substantially. In addition, the percentage of the population 18 to 29 years old and attending college has increased dramatically during the last few years, and because of the debt load they are taking on, they are expected to be renters for a longer period of time, post-education. So affordability is not the defining issue. It is a consequence.

Bob Farrell’s Rule #2

Unfortunately, Mr. Market is the issue and at the margin, the film is jammed, the screen looks like bubbling molasses. We never did stop to figure out how Grandpa did that, but I suppose he just wound the film on the reel backwards. Ultimately the market has to clear and — wouldn’t you know it? — that just leads us right back to Bob Farrell’s Market Rules to Remember. Rule #2 is operative, particularly when viewing the Case Shiller Housing Price Chart. “Excesses in one direction will lead to an opposite excess in the other direction.”  Rule #2 is based on a common sense understanding of supply and demand. Normal human perception dictates that the longer and steeper a market appreciates (or depreciates) the more linear the belief in the trend becomes. Of course, that is not the way the universe actually works. During periods of extreme linear belief, supply explodes (or implodes in the case exponentially rapidly falling markets). Compounding the human perception problem is the fact that, once the market exposes the flaw of linear thinking, belief then retreats to the concept of “fair value.”

But Mr. Market won’t be satisfied until supply is cleared. That is why “extremely cheap” has to follow “manically expensive.” “Fair value” is just a rest stop along the way. The rent/buy calculus, even though it is a moving target, is a central equation in trying to determine “fair value” in the housing market. But just as this metric for fair value was completely abandoned in the face of the marvelous process of capital appreciation during the secular bull market, prices will reflect overwhelming concerns about devaluation, maintenance expense and vacancy risk as well as a general deflationary mentality toward rent at the bottom extreme. It ain’t easy being human. That is why it is good to have rules. In addition to correcting prices, correcting excesses in things such as size, configuration and location will have to occur as well.

We have spoken in the past about the 1973 Lincoln Continental syndrome. The housing bubble resulted in a dramatic increase in the average square footage of homes, even as the average number of people in the family got smaller. Standard equipment became more opulent at all levels. A perception developed that second homes were broadly affordable so vacation and retirement spots were dramatically overbuilt. For all these reasons, supply across the spectrum is extremely large and growing. Much of it is obsolete. Think McMansion developments in marginal neighborhoods. It is very difficult to envision the housing market making a positive contribution to economic growth over the next several years.

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box.)

  • DG September 18, 2010, 3:54 am

    David Stockman speaks a reasonable opinion, I think. Good weekend viewing:
    http://financialarmageddon.com/

    first video

    Doesn’t bode well for stocks, housing, business, employment…

  • Bradley September 17, 2010, 8:02 pm

    Here on the west coast, I am at least a little surprised to see houses continue to come on the market in our area. These are certainly all second homes, as some have been rented out, some we see folks in who live other places, and some are in what seems to be a continual remodeling process. There are at least 4 houses like this for sale on our street, and there are only 12 houses total. What peaks my interest is that, obviously, prices have already dropped quite a bit, yet sellers continue to list new places, and I must conclude that they feel forced to do so, and that they either don’t have the luxury to wait or don’t think that they will get a better price if they do wait.

    One last anecdote. One of my clients is the president of one of the largest mutual funds in the world. His net worth is at least in the hundreds of millions of dollars. He had his beach house on the market for probably a year, and took an offer at half the asking price of $32 million. He had already sold his main residence and moved into a luxury apartment, so I have to guess that he didn’t NEED the money from the sale of the beach house, so I’m guessing that he also doesn’t think that houses will appreciate in the near future, and that he was better off taking a “fire sale” price rather than sitting on the place much longer. Lots of guessing, but it sure is interesting…

  • Benjamin September 17, 2010, 10:10 am

    Nice article, except for two things…

    1) “It is very difficult to envision the housing market making a positive contribution to economic growth over the next several years.”

    Accurate, but I feel this is incomplete. If I may fill in the missing peice…

    I know we don’t live in a sane world, but in a sane world, why should it contribute to economic growth in the first place, rather than the other way around? Savings being more greatly available would mean more expensive houses, until savings ran low, after which point you take what you can get or don’t. And if you got a job opportunity, no sense sittin’ on a house you can’t sell for as much as you’d life.

    That said, the last sentence of the article is ominous, for the reason that we haven’t been living in a sane world. This is really saying we’re not going to have much of an economy to speak of.

    2) Renting (grrr…)

    Since the economy isn’t going to be, why say anything about renting vs buying? I don’t doubt more people will, or will try to, but rents are going to be going up you know. And what’s going to be paying more of them for them? Welfare? Nothing? Well, let’s see…

    I have an aunt who owns her own insurance business. A couple weeks back, she told me, a customer was telling her about NYC these days. He said he couldn’t drive more than “three feet” (exact words) without being swarmed by people begging. If true, this can’t possibly be a good sign for the landlord industry either, even if Uncle Sammy is got ’em covered. Hell, that makes things worse, doesn’t it?

    I don’t know if Mr. Rosenberg was aiming for that outlook, perhaps candidly saying in IT by saying “we won’t be back in Kansas anytime soon…”, but that’s what I saw from this article.

  • Bay of Pigs (Mitch) September 17, 2010, 9:19 am

    Come on Rick,
    Screw housing, it is DEAD. Where is the loudmouth Rich blasting gold these days? After ten long years can we finally agree that these people have ZERO credibility?
    Bring it on…

  • Tom Paine September 17, 2010, 4:24 am

    Great piece. The only thing I might change is at the end where you say “It is very difficult to envision the housing market making a positive contribution to economic growth over the next several years.” I’d probably change “years” to “decades”.

  • fooser100 September 17, 2010, 3:12 am

    I agree that the bottom is yet to come. We tried to sell my mother-in-law’s home back in 2003 (just after the market peaked in our area, Ohio). If you were in the market, you could figure it out easily. We sold her home at auction to unload it (to satisfy nursing home debt no less). It was appraised at 135 K and brought in 90K. What a joke that was, so I thought, but it turns out that the market is even worse now……..so maybe we were lucky, huh?

    Our own home is paid for and I feel for those that have gotten in deep and can’t get out without a loss. You gotta live somewhere and if you have a few bucks, you could pick up a good deal. FWIW

  • Chris T. September 17, 2010, 2:50 am

    Very well written article, with many insightful points.
    Also, the first comment is helpful, especially as you prove my point made earlier about the developers that get rich on Mt. Laurel type developments.

    One thing is interesting, how hard the notion that housing / R.E. MUST “recover” is to dispel.

    Sure, there will be demand for housing for a long time, that is not going away. But that has nothing to do with a bubble (and who would contest that we had one) making it back to its highest levels again at some point.
    Which bubble ever came back to its top, after it busted? The Tokyo analogy above is apt.

    The original bubble, Tulipomania, never made it back, despite that, people still enjoy tulips, and the Dutch make more there today prob. than they did 400 years ago.
    Dot.com? many of the companies that frothed are still around and not doing too badly, and even those who are gone, their technology is still around, and developed further.
    BUT, the LEVELS of that bubble won’t return, see the Nasdaq’s chart.

    Thus, even with a normalization of the housing markets structure (supply/demand*financing standards/financing prices/etc), none of that is any reason for the bubble PRICING excesses themselves to return, and bubble history is not dispositive here.
    Could it happen, who knows, but not how bubbles play out usually.

    So, much more prudent to believe that the hot money will go somewhere else, than back to R.E., even without the articles MANY good reasons, why a return is not very likely.

  • Steve September 17, 2010, 2:14 am

    I wish home prices would hurry up and fall, b/c prices are up a good 10% ytd in my neck of the woods.

  • FranSix September 16, 2010, 9:07 pm

    If only you could invent some sort of ponzi scheme selling the hyperinflation story to anyone willing to listen. ( -But don’t let anybody know you’re a deflationist!!)

    There’s been a big surge into corporate bonds over the last year, so the expectation is that bubbles will be re-blown.

  • JohnJay September 16, 2010, 6:05 pm

    I think real estate is the wrong investment at this time.
    Here is the link: http://tinyurl.com/25aoln9
    880 million dollar ponzi scheme in Florida.
    He promised returns of up to 26% in the grocery distribution business.
    Greed trumps fear once again!
    Barnum was right!

  • jj September 16, 2010, 4:37 pm

    Hmm, I wonder if the opinions were the same on a Tokyo web-site 20 years ago regarding real estate?

    A bottom will be found of course but perhaps a top will never be seen for many, many years…..something new to real estate…..stagnant pricing for years as in 20+

    The boomers are done with their major purchases of debt servicing years its now full on panic mode to survive their retirement.

    Excellent read, thanks!

  • fallingman September 16, 2010, 4:08 pm

    Very good, well-written article. Thanks.

  • PhotoRadarScam September 16, 2010, 8:01 am

    Housing may turn around faster than people think. 5 years instead of 10 or 20. If you look at the CA crash in the late 80’s, their recovery took only about 7 years. So it doesn’t have to take decades to recover…

    But the real reason is that home prices – at least in Arizona – are already at a low enough level that investors can instantly cash flow most low-end properties, and it’s definitely cheaper to own than to rent. So further downside is probably limited.

    But price recovery doesn’t have to be ‘organic.’ Consider the hyperinflationary scenario. If/when it comes, people will be so eager to get out of USD and RE prices will be quite low, so everyone will start snatching up any real assets like RE.

    Anyway, that is my plan… after a nice run-up in gold here in the next few years, I will transfer gold (sell high) to real estate (buy low).

  • keith September 16, 2010, 7:12 am

    When I can buy a nice house for 10 ounces of gold I’m going to pull the trigger. Lucky me, I already have the 10 ounces 🙂

  • JohnJay September 16, 2010, 5:43 am

    Yes, house prices will continue to drift down over time.
    However the Fannie/Freddie/FHA/Fed consortium will fight that trend until the last taxpayer is drained.
    They are still offering essentially nothing down ($1,000)
    financing in some areas.
    TPTB don’t plan on bringing jobs and factories back to the States, Biden and others have come right out and said it.
    So the DC Gang will attempt to maintain the illusion of high house prices as long as they can.
    Pimco boss Bill Gross already wants the Federal government to take over the entire home mortgage industry.
    Should make for quite a show over the next few years.

    • gary leibowitz September 18, 2010, 3:46 am

      I just read how Bill Gross took a huge hedge against deflation. He damn well wants housing to recover. If deflation spirals out of control he will be one poor rich fellow.

  • Michael Schurr September 16, 2010, 2:33 am

    Although I often read Rick’s commentary I’ve never taken the time to pen a response or rebuttal. In this case, you speak about a topic that I believe I know something about and can contribute meaningful input. For the past 30 years I have in one form or another been in the real estate business. First as a residential appraiser after graduating from college, then a commercial real estate broker and currently a real estate developer. When people ask me what I do for a living and I provide the appropriate response, they often look at me as if I’m an endangered species and then the typicial response ” wow, business isn’t so hot is it?” Fortunately for me, I saw past the horizon in 2003 and built a business model for my newly formed development company that focused on government subsidized housing. Frankly, I was asked by one of my prospective financial backers if I knew anything about affordable housing and I responded honestly and said “I didn’t.” What I did know was that Easy Al was eventually going to create another bubble with his zero% interest rate environment and I had no interest in sticking around to find out how the story would end. I was smart enough to recognize an opportunity to build houses using government subsidy and sell them to low and moderate income people who had jobs, decent credit and could take advantage of our government’s policy and desire to allow poor people to realize the American dream thanks to the Community Reinvestment Act.

    What I witnessed over the next few years in the “non-affordable market” was blatant disregard for every safeguard and common sense underwriting regulation ever established as well as outright fraud. The real estate brokers were making too much money selling anyone with a pulse a home, the mortgage lenders were ignoring every warning sign that a buyer would eventually default because they were getting rich by the hour and every buyer in the marketplace was telling both of them whatever they wanted to hear in order to qualify for the house that they had to have. OK, well we all now know the story, but how did it end for the majority of people I sold homes to? Actually fairly well, you see the homes we developed were well built, in “frontier” inner-city neighborhoods and priced so a buyer of modest means could actually afford it. The reality is, the cost to own was less than the cost to rent and with the government down payment assistance, if you had good credit you were in with zero money down.

    I make this point because what I saw was hard working people, who may have bent the rules to get in but because the cost of ownership was affordable and no way above their means were able to remain in the home and for the most part their 30 year mortgage didn’t have a rate reset provision.

    So how does this relate to present day and the future you might ask? Americans always want bigger and better, hence the McMansion Syndrome. Unfortunately, they should take a lesson from the low and moderate income buyers living in the inner city. Find a home that you can afford based on traditional un- derwriting guidelines, dont bite off more than you can chew, get a fixed rate 30 year mortgage and dont pull cash out of your house in 5 years if by some stoke of luck you realize any appreciation.

    So long as the government continues to support FHA financing, just about anyone with a job can get a mortgage today and withthe number of foreclosures, opportunity is endless. Theres a whole segment of the population that can buy homes. Maybe not new homes in $million developments but decent productive housing that has been reset in value by the foreclosure process. Once those homes are absorbed and the shadow market shrinks, new home builders may once again be able to produce new housing, albeit at a diminished rate. I can only hope they realize that a “right sized” home is what people need and can afford and the days of 7000 s.f Toll Brothers specials are a thing that history books refer to.

    In the interim, it will be a long time before the pendulum swings back toward center and I agree with the writer that Fair Value is about the same distance past the horizon as it was in 2003 when I first looked East.

    • Benjamin September 17, 2010, 10:34 am

      Between my comment and everything you said, I feel that I was on to something after all.

      It would also not surprise me to some day hear that you or someone in the same business is charged with fraud. Why, how dare you overbill the government, trying to take advantage of poor people like that!

      Not it will ever be said quite like that, but taxes talk, people walk… know what I’m saying? The bankers got the one half, government got the other. Ain’t winning here, that I see.

      Anyway, your commentary touched upon something I submitted a week or so back, I’d like to point out that McMansion Syndrome was probably only part of it. I had it in mind that taxes go up first, cheifly the property taxes in the case of houses. But with so many different kinds of taxes that affect anyone, directly and indirectly, it’s hard to tell.

      Anyway, property tax goes up for some reason. In turn, people fall a bit behind on other bills… then miss payments… then finally refinance their older home (not nessecarily a bigger peice of Chinese drywall crap) in order to try and get ahead. And in so doing, rising “value” is realized, and the tax goes up again. Then there’s the outright abuse of power…

      The city where my parents live has done it again. You can’t cut down trees on city property, which includes easements next to the street/sidewalk. But they’ve had an old, sick tree there for about four years now. Two years ago, they were put on a list to have it cut down. The city never did it, but now they changed the rules. They won’t cut them down as part of city service anymore, and unless you have them removed, they will come out… but tack the charge on to your property tax bill, for that year and… Well, no one is sure about the next year, and the year after, etc.

      And prior to that, the city was all over them over an “eyesore” garage that wasn’t hurting anything.

      So in all of this talk of Syndromes, I have to dismiss McMansions as a sole cause. Perhaps it’s not even just the single main cause. Cities are abusive. Property tax Assessors are abusive. And banks and thier appraisers…

      Well, they were more than happy to oblige those people looking to not be excessively fined and/or evicted by their local and state governments, that also have bills to catch up with.