5 ms·

Note that the lockup for the recent spate of IPOs hasn't expired yet. It's possible that there will be a small recovery/bounce in the coming winter and spring.

Note that the lockup for the recent spate of IPOs hasn't expired yet. It's possible that there will be a small recovery/bounce in the coming winter and spring. We'll see.

mr_tristan 7y ago
It's weird, but I wonder if people may be holding on to supply with this in mind. Or even waiting until next spring.
- dougmwne 7y ago
  But decreased supply from buyers waiting to list should increase prices, not decrease them.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Indeed. However, I wonder how median price is impacted by a shifting mix of the houses that change hands? If buyers were moving towards the lower end of the market and away from the upper end, you could see the median price decrease when in fact any given house has actually gone up in price.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    Now, at least. If the buyers don't materialize and they give up on waiting, it increases supply and decreases prices.
- foggyeyes69 7y ago
  If they were holding on to supply, it would keep prices high (since the people that did want to buy houses right now would have to pay higher prices to make up for the lost revenue sellers would have gotten post IPO
rconti 7y ago
With a seemingly endless stream of stock wealth, those recent IPOs don't even cross my radar, frankly. I don't have the impression that there are more IPOs recently than there had been over the past decade, but maybe I'm wrong.
- 8ytecoder 7y ago
  For companies centered around the Bay Area, this was probably the biggest year in a while. However, employees have had secondary market access to sell their shares in all the major companies that went public recently. So I'm not sure if the lockup would make a difference.
nostrademons 7y ago
Is that actually a major blocker? Anecdotally, when I check out expensive open houses, it's frequently Uber & Lyft engineers that are also there. It's possible that they're just window shopping, but to me it seems like if you know you have $X in pre-IPO stock and have been pulling in $150-200K base for 5+ years the lockup doesn't really matter. You've got enough saved for a down payment already, and when I talked to a mortgage broker they seemed willing to lend against public-company stock compensation. (This strikes me as...risky, but it wouldn't be the first time banks have done something risky in a bubble.)
- rolltiide 7y ago
  > risky It just depends on the debt to collateral ratio 25% could be good enough, but when they do 50% or overleverage then you should worry The bay area would definitely be hit hard temporarily if tech, housing and lending slowed as some real estate companies take on greater risk than others, like offering no money down if you work at a FAANG with a lien on your shares. But if there isnt much leverage then asset prices themselves dont magically become a problem just because the upward trajectory lasted a while 1999 and 2008 were leverage problems, with 2008 exacerbated by the surprise implosion of a large bank - Lehman - a few days after getting the highest credit rating, this simultaneously froze all lending since the confidence system failed. Morgan Stanley was leverage 40x the assets they had. So regulations since then ensure certain capital ratios: deleverage. As long as people find wealth and buy with that found wealth, bull market continues. If people buy with the future prospects of finding wealth, and that fails, bull market fails. Less future betting, continued steady bull market.

Note that the lockup for the recent spate of IPOs hasn't expired yet. It's possible that there will be a small recovery/bounce in the coming winter and spring. We'll see.

mr_tristan 7y ago

It's weird, but I wonder if people may be holding on to supply with this in mind. Or even waiting until next spring.

dougmwne 7y ago
But decreased supply from buyers waiting to list should increase prices, not decrease them.
- refurb 7y ago
  Indeed. However, I wonder how median price is impacted by a shifting mix of the houses that change hands? If buyers were moving towards the lower end of the market and away from the upper end, you could see the median price decrease when in fact any given house has actually gone up in price.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  Now, at least. If the buyers don't materialize and they give up on waiting, it increases supply and decreases prices.
foggyeyes69 7y ago
If they were holding on to supply, it would keep prices high (since the people that did want to buy houses right now would have to pay higher prices to make up for the lost revenue sellers would have gotten post IPO

rconti 7y ago

With a seemingly endless stream of stock wealth, those recent IPOs don't even cross my radar, frankly. I don't have the impression that there are more IPOs recently than there had been over the past decade, but maybe I'm wrong.

8ytecoder 7y ago
For companies centered around the Bay Area, this was probably the biggest year in a while. However, employees have had secondary market access to sell their shares in all the major companies that went public recently. So I'm not sure if the lockup would make a difference.

nostrademons 7y ago

Is that actually a major blocker? Anecdotally, when I check out expensive open houses, it's frequently Uber & Lyft engineers that are also there. It's possible that they're just window shopping, but to me it seems like if you know you have $X in pre-IPO stock and have been pulling in $150-200K base for 5+ years the lockup doesn't really matter. You've got enough saved for a down payment already, and when I talked to a mortgage broker they seemed willing to lend against public-company stock compensation. (This strikes me as...risky, but it wouldn't be the first time banks have done something risky in a bubble.)

rolltiide 7y ago
> risky It just depends on the debt to collateral ratio 25% could be good enough, but when they do 50% or overleverage then you should worry The bay area would definitely be hit hard temporarily if tech, housing and lending slowed as some real estate companies take on greater risk than others, like offering no money down if you work at a FAANG with a lien on your shares. But if there isnt much leverage then asset prices themselves dont magically become a problem just because the upward trajectory lasted a while 1999 and 2008 were leverage problems, with 2008 exacerbated by the surprise implosion of a large bank - Lehman - a few days after getting the highest credit rating, this simultaneously froze all lending since the confidence system failed. Morgan Stanley was leverage 40x the assets they had. So regulations since then ensure certain capital ratios: deleverage. As long as people find wealth and buy with that found wealth, bull market continues. If people buy with the future prospects of finding wealth, and that fails, bull market fails. Less future betting, continued steady bull market.