Archive for ‘Housing Market News 2010’ category

Foreclosures in Febuary 2010, multiple offers and more

15 March, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

As we move into the mid point of March I am seeing a different pulse from the past 30 months.  Maybe, just maybe, by July of 2010 I will be able to look back six months and finally say “we hit bottom”, keep your fingers crossed.

Here is a quick note from Vince Lotito with PrimeLending, INFO THAT HITS US WHERE WE LIVE:

“There wasn’t a ton of housing news last week, but one can always find a few significant items. For example, foreclosure filings in February were down 2% from January and up just 6% from a year ago — their smallest increase in four years. Most significantly, in the six states that made up 61% of the national total for February, foreclosure filings were down 15% from a year ago. We’re definitely heading in the right direction. �

Here’s a chart showing that housing is a great long-term investment, not withstanding the last 3 years.”

Inventory is getting tight, I know that many of you will find this odd with prices still showing declines and, in some neighborhoods, a For Sale sign on every corner, but inventory is getting slim in select parts of Reno, Sparks and Carson City.

For the first time ever, we are seeing multiple offers on short sales, and the offers are no longer at the bottom of the barrel.  Encouraging signs and with 16 days left in March, this month may well prove to be a bellwether month.

How much are foreclosed/short sales really costing us in the market today?

15 March, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

Over the last four years Northern Nevada has been knocked back and forth by the winds of the financial markets.  Prior to 2006 foreclosed homes accounted for less than 1% of the real estate market.  By 2008 foreclosed/short sales were accounting for upwards of 75% of all sales, with short sales and foreclosed homes dividing the market roughly half each.

As we move from 2009 into 2010 banks want homes sold using the short sale method if possble.  They still get their insurance and they get their write-offs but do not have to take possession of the property and all attendent costs.  As short sales have moved to the forefront of market activity the question is raised: what will a buyer be willing to pay to buy a home that can actually close escrow in less than 45 days? Homes with good certainy that the escrow will close, versus 180 days filled with uncertainty all the way?

To answer that question I have taken the time to break down our market by traditional sales, short sales and by foreclosed sales.

By March of 2010 in the greater Reno/Sparks market, 710 homes had closed escrow:

The average price was $212,878

Traditional: 180 sold with an average sales price of $283,923

Short sales: 246 sold with an average sales price of $190,363

Foreclosed: 224 sold with an average sales price of $189,419

We are seeing an area-wide, whopping 30% difference from a traditional sale to a distressed sale. Now taking a look at a specific neighborhood, such as Sommersett, we can see a more specfic example:

Traditional: 11 homes sold for an average price of $308,384

Short sale: 11 homes sold for an average price of $279,841

Foreclosed: 7 homes sold for an average price of $259,821

Therefore, to buy a home that will close, the market paid about a 10% premium.

What about pending sales?

Northwest Reno today has 100 pending sales, 8 traditional, 80 short and 9 foreclosed.

Traditional sales in escrow are averaging $244,616

Short sales in escrow are averaging $208,000

Foreclosed sales in escrow are averaging $183,938

That means that the market is adjusting about 15% for the ability to buy a home that will close escrow.

From these three examples it can be seen that sellers that will sell as a traditional sale can, in fact, sell at higher prices.  Conversely, the banks practice of short sales is costing the markets at least 15% in equities than a more sensible approach to the short sale process would result in.

Our markets have been rocked by the storm of the incredibly badly managed financial markets but without question, if leadership existed that was forward thinking, our markets could already be leveling out and even begining to move forward, but alas that has not happened and does not appear to be on the horizon.

On April 5th new guidelines will be released that may affect some of the above numbers, the question is going to be, in which way?

What is wrong with FDIC?

5 March, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

There are now 702 banks on the FDIC’s endangered list.  That’s about 10% of all community financial institutions.  Unless something changes, very few of these will survive.  As I’ve recently blogged (The Creation of Jobs – A Systemic Failure, February 23, 2010, http://ancorawest.wordpress.com ), these are institutions that make loans to small business, and it is widely recognized that small business is the job creating engine in America.  So, imagine, 10% of this vitally important industry is being devastated.  Our politicians praise FDIC Chairwoman Shelia Bair.  But I submit that she and her organization, the FDIC, is single-handedly destroying the basic fabric of American business.

It need not be that way.  What we have is government run amok.   First, two decades of excessively easy monetary policy which has led to a devastating debt bubble.  Then, when the crisis hits, the government responds by using taxpayer dollars to save the “Too Big To Fail” (TBTF) institutions that played a key role in fostering the debt bubble.  Finally, seeing that the public is up in arms about such policies and government behavior, the government reacts by refusing to aid those institutions that are now victims of the government’s own and the TBTF institutions’ policies, but are vital to economic recovery.

In trying to make it look like it is protecting the taxpayer, the FDIC has taken heavy handed and aggressive tactics with community financial institutions.  The problem here is political.  They want to appear tough to satisfy what they perceive the public wants, especially after the government’s TARP, AIG, and TBTF “bonus” fiascos.  The result is a depleted FDIC insurance fund, a certain need for a taxpayer bailout sometime this year, and devastation for America’s small banks and small business.

Each of the 702 endangered institutions has a Cease and Desist Order (C&D), the last step before closure.  Each C&D Order and all of the correspondence from the FDIC accuses Boards and Management of “incompetence” and “mismanagement” despite the fact that in ’05 and ’06, most of these same Boards and Managements received high scores in examinations.  I simply can’t swallow the assertion that most of the 702 institutions suffer from “incompetent” management.  We are in the midst of an economic crisis, not a crisis of management.  Yet, the FDIC is addressing the issue as if only the latter is the cause.

Each of the 702 problem institutions has a capital raising mandate as part of the C&D order.  The fact is, once on this list, capital is impossible to raise.  Those with capital to inject simply only have to wait for the FDIC to close the institution to get a once in a lifetime sweetheart deal from the FDIC.  On the other hand, the TBTF easily raised capital last November and December to repay TARP in order to ensure that big bonuses could be paid.  They could raise capital because the public knows that the government won’t let these behemoths fail.

Worse, when an institution is closed, in come the Wall Street wealthy who appear to get the deal of a lifetime, at taxpayer expense.  [The FDIC will argue that the insurance funds are not taxpayer dollars, but insurance premiums paid by insured institutions.  Two points: 1) the FDIC fund is now -$20 billion, so soon taxpayers will be on the hook; 2) bank fees would be lower without insurance premiums, so, like every other tax, eventually the consumer pays.]  By the way, one must be an “approved” purchaser to purchase the failed banks, an exclusive club composed mainly of Wall Street sharks.

Capital devastation for these small banks comes mainly from souring loans (although the opening salvo was the losses many took on FNMA and FHLMC preferred stock in September, 2008, another government failure).  In many instances accounting rules require loan write-downs upon renewal of loans if appraisals come in lower than at loan inception, virtually a 100% probability.  Bank balance sheets are illiquid by design (they turn illiquid collateral assets into cash via the loan process).  Rules that force “mark to market” on such illiquid assets only erodes capital, make survival problematic, and prohibit new loans to small business, thereby prolonging the economic crisis and joblessness.  Instead of blaming management and employing Gestapo like tactics, an approach to capital that allows “healing” time for bank balance sheets appears to be a better and cheaper approach, especially in light of the FDIC’s mandate to resolve institutions using a “least cost” approach.  Most of the assets on those balance sheets will regain value as economic conditions improve.  Time is all the institutions need.

One way to provide time would be to have a special category of capital where the “write-downs” of loans due to economic circumstances could be amortized over a long period, say 10 or 20 years.  This would give the vast majority of the 702 doomed institutions new life.  If it is publicly perceived that they will survive, most will have the ability to raise capital, and the time to heal.

I believe the devastation and havoc being wreaked upon Main Street America’s financial institutions by Ms. Bair and the FDIC’s current policies will continue to cripple America’s economic engine and prolong the economic malaise.  Funny thing about America, oftentimes media heroes turn out to be real villains: Elliot Spitzer, Bernard Madoff, Alan Greenspan, Tiger Woods, to name a few.  If the FDIC’s current policies continue, we’ll soon add Shelia Bair to this list.

Robert Barone, Ph.D.

March 1, 2010

Courtesy of Ancorawest and Robert Barone

Are rents a leading indicator for home prices?

24 February, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

The question being asked today by buyers and sellers is, when will the bottom be found, when will we know values are as low as they will go?

People want to know if now is a good time to buy or sell, or if they should wait. We all need to stay on top of trends in real estate values — so what’s a good way to analyze the situation?

Yale economist Robert Shiller states it bluntly: “If you look at the trend in rents to see where housing prices are headed, you’re looking at the right measure.” Shiller is the co-developer of the S&P Case/Shiller Home Price Indices that monthly track residential real estate values nationally and in 20 metro areas.

Traditionally, people have been willing to pay a modest premium to own a home rather than rent it. Recent studies report that in 1999 rents averaged 87% of the after-tax mortgage payment for houses and condos of similar size in the same neighborhood.

When home prices took off, this percentage changed. By mid-2006, rents had fallen to less than 60% of after-tax mortgage payments. In some markets, owners were paying twice as much as renters for a similar property in the same neighborhood. In a few places, owner monthly payments were three times average rents.

The 87% ratio of rent to ownership cost for 1999 is a good benchmark because it stayed around that level throughout the 1990′s and the steep rise in home prices hadn’t really begun.

With that as our guide, we can conclude that home prices at last appear to be stabilizing. By the end of October 2009, rents on average were up to 83% of ownership costs!

Conditions vary from market to market, so check your own area. But with historically low mortgage rates, plus the homebuyer tax credit, this could be a great time to be buying or selling.

Courtesy of Vince Lotito of Prime Lending

Reno/Sparks February mid-month update

18 February, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

Please take a look at our mid month update for the Reno/Sparks market as of February 16th, 2010

You’ll see the following categories:
f/s = Homes that are for sale today.
Pend = Pending sales today but not closed.
% of pending sales today that are short sales.
Sold = Sold homes in the last 180 days.

All sales values are averages.

$000,000-$250,000

f/s 821 units $165,943 avg. 94 days on market
Pend 1,315 units $155,614 avg. 140 days on market
% short sales 72%
Sold 2,072 units $155,346 avg. 116 days on market

$250,000-$500,000

f/s 386 units $348,099 avg. 132 days on market
Pend 291 units $330,279 avg. 170 days on market
% short sales 62%
Sold 544 units $326,288 avg. 147 days on market

$500,000-$750,000

f/s 164 units $612,121 avg. 188 days on market
Pend 45 units $609,890 avg. 250 days on market
% short sales 64%
Sold 89 units $599,365 avg. 183 days on market

$750,000-$1mill

f/s 74 units $894,265 avg. 202 days on market
Pend 15 units $843,377 avg. 333 days on market
% short sales 80%
Sold 20 units $879,743 avg. 164 days on market

$1mill-$2mill

f/s 103 units $1,518,516 avg. 315 days on market
Pend 9 units $1,350,000 avg. 601 days on market
% short sales 67%
Sold 17 units $1,246,000 avg. 200 days on market

$2mill +

f/s 26 units $2,872,688 avg. 289 days on market
Pend 0 $0 0
Sold 1 unit $2,250,000 575 days on market

Good News About The Housing Market

3 March, 2009 | David Morris Group | No Comment

New-home sales climbed 4.7% during February to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 337,000, the first month-to-month increase since July, the Commerce Department said. The data marked another favorable sign for the housing market, but prices continued to decline. The median price of a new home tumbled 18% in February from a year earlier to $200,900. The median price in January was $206,800.

In another positive sign for the economy, an earlier report from the Commerce Department showed durable-goods orders unexpectedly climbed 3.4% during February.