4 ms·

It won't matter for Millennials trying to buy their first homes. I'm seeing single-family houses going for $310k that should be going for maybe 2/3rds of that

It won't matter for Millennials trying to buy their first homes. I'm seeing single-family houses going for $310k that should be going for maybe 2/3rds of that on a good day. Typically they're flipped houses. If you were to bring down the value of every single-family home in the US, that means accepting about 2/3rds the value of each of these mortgages, along with all of the securitized derivatives of them. That's a 2007-2009-level crash, which the banks just won't tolerate. The far more likely play is that large regional, national, or international investors wait for the price to drop a little more and use what is basically an infinite pile of money to buy them up for speculation or rental stock, which will keep this problem going.

lastofthemojito 3y ago
> I'm seeing single-family houses going for $310k that should be going for maybe 2/3rds of that on a good day. I've been hearing a lot of "should be" talk like that recently - like folks complaining that people are paying $50k for a normal SUV that "should be" $30k or whatever. What are we basing "should be" on? Some affordability metric? Our gut feeling about what a comparable thing cost a few years ago? If I sold my house and someone told me I should have sold it for 2/3 of what I sold it for, I think I'd sit in stunned silence for a moment and then just laugh.
- res0nat0r 3y ago
  I'm guessing that is the case. Condos next door that cost $210k before covid now in the exact same spot three years alter asking for $630k is probably making people ask questions about the market.
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  It's a 60+ year-old single-family, single-garage home within eye (and more importantly, ear) shot of a major interstate highway next to the home of a man who has a number of city code violations due to the state of his property (think rank weeds, cracked paint, tires in the yard, etc.) in a major Midwestern city where the average household income is ~$56,000. When you consider who this kind of housing was built for - younger married couples with two children - the problem becomes apparent. You can't cover COL, costs of raising children, a mortgage on a $310k house at 7% interest, an auto loan note at the same, and student loan debt on $56k household income. Wages are stagnant, so something has to go. Typically, it's the idea of children or the idea of owning a house. This has implications for the economy 20 years from now. There won't be as many consumers and workers to participate in the market, and those that do exist are likely to have access to less generational wealth because their parents were more likely to rent than to own. Neither bodes well for economic growth or stability. That's what I mean by "should cost" - a value that allows for a seller to sell a home at a reasonable price to a party that wishes to carry out the life stage activities that provide for future economic growth.
  - poulsbohemian 3y ago
    I'm looking out the window of my real estate office toward a neighborhood a lot like what you are describing - except our median income is abut $20K less and we aren't in the midwest. Those houses here would be within the same range you are talking about, and it's just basic supply+demand, plus the replacement cost. What does that same house cost today to build? It may not seem fair, but that's why even the "affordable" suburban tract housing in my area starts in the high-300s.
    - lenerdenator 3y ago
      I wouldn't describe it as a matter of fairness, thinking deeper about it. We're really just mortgaging quarterly earnings for those with major residential real estate holdings (like pension funds paying out to those born during the Baby Boom) with future economic growth at this point. When asked if they'd rather have sustainable growth that will see them able to put food on their tables 20 years from now or make the line go up over the next 90 days, capital has chosen the latter. That _will_ have a consequence down the line, and it won't be a good one.
      - starttoaster 3y ago
        The other user brought up that the cost to build a home has gone up substantially, and this response seems more like an addendum onto what you were already saying rather than a response to that. Just fyi. I think there is inherent truth to what you're saying as well, in that business decisions more often than not seem driven by the dangling carrot of short term profits. But there can be a multitude of reasons why the cost of a house is just out of reach to what we used to consider the "average middle class American."
        lenerdenator 3y ago
        What builders/bankers want to build costs more. A 3br/2ba/2ga split-level isn't as profitable as, say, an upper-middle-class McMansion.
      - 3y ago
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  Homes 'should' be affordable to the people who live there. I.e. I would hope the median housing costs are no more than a third of the median take home pay for the average resident. Now, I'm not going to sit here and advocate for price fixing, but you can do a few things. 1. Ban AirBnB short term rentals by people who do not own and live in the house. 2. Ban foreign ownership of real estate. A nations laws are there for the benefit of its people, not some random billionaire from china looking for a place to park his money. 3. Much more relaxed zoning, preferably at a national level, or at the very least, at state level. Something akin to Japan where multi-tenant residential housing is permitted in all but a few zones. If all of the above were in place, I'd have no problem with houses going for 'whatever the market will bear'. Sadly our housing market is captured by people with vested interests in making home ownership unaffordable for most.
  - poulsbohemian 3y ago
    These are popular ideas in many places, but here are just some things to consider: 1a) If you town bans short-term rentals but the next town over doesn't, then guess what - the investors just migrate and you haven't actually changed much. 1b) Highest and best use is a really important concept. There are properties that make for not great permanent dwellings but are great short-term rentals. When you put artificial restrictions in place, it doesn't actually help supply. 2) There is so much money here in the US that even banning foreign ownership doesn't matter much. I live in a tourist / second-home market and it's people from the region who are buying up the investments. 3a) My community went to relaxed zoning years ahead of the state. Helped a little, but not as much as everyone hoped. Turns out that it is still expensive to build multi-family, ADUs, etc and not a fit for every life need. 3b) While zoning changes are good, I continue to hammer on income / jobs as a bigger factor in many markets. Don't come at me with SFO or some other example - every market is going to be different. But in places like mine, the make up of the economy is a bigger factor to affordability than zoning or these other changes. Fixing the whole regional economy is not a simple problem and it doesn't campaign well in political stump speeches like "fix zoning" does.
    - danaris 3y ago
- adversaryIdiot 3y ago
  its all about affordability. I'm a 26 year old a software developer but have to live with my parents for the foreseeable future....
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
But see, the thing about flipped houses is that the people who own them don't actually want them. They want to sell them. For as much as they can get, sure, but also to sell them in a timely fashion. So I don't see flippers as being the big deterrent to prices falling. If they haven't caved yet, they will in a few months. > If you were to bring down the value of every single-family home in the US, that means accepting about 2/3rds the value of each of these mortgages, along with all of the securitized derivatives of them. That's a 2007-2009-level crash, which the banks just won't tolerate. And how, specifically, do you think the banks are preventing this? Not just "it's a conspiracy - we all know it". OK, maybe so. What's the mechanism?
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  They want to sell them _at a profit_ and if the market doesn't cool enough, they'll be able to do that no matter what, at the expense of the future economic activity of the people who can afford it. As for the second point, simple. They just refuse to renegotiate loans. Same as 2007-2009. They've gotten far pickier about who it is they loan out to, too, so it's less likely to result in the foreclosure of the home than it was during that time period. The flip side of that is that there's a shrinking pool of families that can afford to take that sort of cost on.
rogerkirkness 3y ago
As a Canadian, I am curious where I can buy this $310k overpriced house.
- deathanatos 3y ago
  My mother recently sent me a listing at about that price. Middle of the desert, New Mexico. ($350k, 1.5k sq ft., 3bd, 1.1ba. Quemado, NM.)
- gosub100 3y ago
  1300 sq. ft, $99k https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/36-1st-St-Mc-Gill-NV-89318/2063476027_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/36-1st-St-Mc-Gill-NV-8931...
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  Kansas City, MO.

lastofthemojito 3y ago

> I'm seeing single-family houses going for $310k that should be going for maybe 2/3rds of that on a good day. I've been hearing a lot of "should be" talk like that recently - like folks complaining that people are paying $50k for a normal SUV that "should be" $30k or whatever. What are we basing "should be" on? Some affordability metric? Our gut feeling about what a comparable thing cost a few years ago? If I sold my house and someone told me I should have sold it for 2/3 of what I sold it for, I think I'd sit in stunned silence for a moment and then just laugh.

res0nat0r 3y ago
I'm guessing that is the case. Condos next door that cost $210k before covid now in the exact same spot three years alter asking for $630k is probably making people ask questions about the market.
lenerdenator 3y ago
It's a 60+ year-old single-family, single-garage home within eye (and more importantly, ear) shot of a major interstate highway next to the home of a man who has a number of city code violations due to the state of his property (think rank weeds, cracked paint, tires in the yard, etc.) in a major Midwestern city where the average household income is ~$56,000. When you consider who this kind of housing was built for - younger married couples with two children - the problem becomes apparent. You can't cover COL, costs of raising children, a mortgage on a $310k house at 7% interest, an auto loan note at the same, and student loan debt on $56k household income. Wages are stagnant, so something has to go. Typically, it's the idea of children or the idea of owning a house. This has implications for the economy 20 years from now. There won't be as many consumers and workers to participate in the market, and those that do exist are likely to have access to less generational wealth because their parents were more likely to rent than to own. Neither bodes well for economic growth or stability. That's what I mean by "should cost" - a value that allows for a seller to sell a home at a reasonable price to a party that wishes to carry out the life stage activities that provide for future economic growth.
- poulsbohemian 3y ago
  I'm looking out the window of my real estate office toward a neighborhood a lot like what you are describing - except our median income is abut $20K less and we aren't in the midwest. Those houses here would be within the same range you are talking about, and it's just basic supply+demand, plus the replacement cost. What does that same house cost today to build? It may not seem fair, but that's why even the "affordable" suburban tract housing in my area starts in the high-300s.
  - lenerdenator 3y ago
    I wouldn't describe it as a matter of fairness, thinking deeper about it. We're really just mortgaging quarterly earnings for those with major residential real estate holdings (like pension funds paying out to those born during the Baby Boom) with future economic growth at this point. When asked if they'd rather have sustainable growth that will see them able to put food on their tables 20 years from now or make the line go up over the next 90 days, capital has chosen the latter. That _will_ have a consequence down the line, and it won't be a good one.
    - starttoaster 3y ago
      The other user brought up that the cost to build a home has gone up substantially, and this response seems more like an addendum onto what you were already saying rather than a response to that. Just fyi. I think there is inherent truth to what you're saying as well, in that business decisions more often than not seem driven by the dangling carrot of short term profits. But there can be a multitude of reasons why the cost of a house is just out of reach to what we used to consider the "average middle class American."
      - lenerdenator 3y ago
        What builders/bankers want to build costs more. A 3br/2ba/2ga split-level isn't as profitable as, say, an upper-middle-class McMansion.
    - 3y ago
wing-_-nuts 3y ago
Homes 'should' be affordable to the people who live there. I.e. I would hope the median housing costs are no more than a third of the median take home pay for the average resident. Now, I'm not going to sit here and advocate for price fixing, but you can do a few things. 1. Ban AirBnB short term rentals by people who do not own and live in the house. 2. Ban foreign ownership of real estate. A nations laws are there for the benefit of its people, not some random billionaire from china looking for a place to park his money. 3. Much more relaxed zoning, preferably at a national level, or at the very least, at state level. Something akin to Japan where multi-tenant residential housing is permitted in all but a few zones. If all of the above were in place, I'd have no problem with houses going for 'whatever the market will bear'. Sadly our housing market is captured by people with vested interests in making home ownership unaffordable for most.
- poulsbohemian 3y ago
  These are popular ideas in many places, but here are just some things to consider: 1a) If you town bans short-term rentals but the next town over doesn't, then guess what - the investors just migrate and you haven't actually changed much. 1b) Highest and best use is a really important concept. There are properties that make for not great permanent dwellings but are great short-term rentals. When you put artificial restrictions in place, it doesn't actually help supply. 2) There is so much money here in the US that even banning foreign ownership doesn't matter much. I live in a tourist / second-home market and it's people from the region who are buying up the investments. 3a) My community went to relaxed zoning years ahead of the state. Helped a little, but not as much as everyone hoped. Turns out that it is still expensive to build multi-family, ADUs, etc and not a fit for every life need. 3b) While zoning changes are good, I continue to hammer on income / jobs as a bigger factor in many markets. Don't come at me with SFO or some other example - every market is going to be different. But in places like mine, the make up of the economy is a bigger factor to affordability than zoning or these other changes. Fixing the whole regional economy is not a simple problem and it doesn't campaign well in political stump speeches like "fix zoning" does.
  - danaris 3y ago
adversaryIdiot 3y ago
its all about affordability. I'm a 26 year old a software developer but have to live with my parents for the foreseeable future....

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

But see, the thing about flipped houses is that the people who own them don't actually want them. They want to sell them. For as much as they can get, sure, but also to sell them in a timely fashion. So I don't see flippers as being the big deterrent to prices falling. If they haven't caved yet, they will in a few months. > If you were to bring down the value of every single-family home in the US, that means accepting about 2/3rds the value of each of these mortgages, along with all of the securitized derivatives of them. That's a 2007-2009-level crash, which the banks just won't tolerate. And how, specifically, do you think the banks are preventing this? Not just "it's a conspiracy - we all know it". OK, maybe so. What's the mechanism?

lenerdenator 3y ago
They want to sell them _at a profit_ and if the market doesn't cool enough, they'll be able to do that no matter what, at the expense of the future economic activity of the people who can afford it. As for the second point, simple. They just refuse to renegotiate loans. Same as 2007-2009. They've gotten far pickier about who it is they loan out to, too, so it's less likely to result in the foreclosure of the home than it was during that time period. The flip side of that is that there's a shrinking pool of families that can afford to take that sort of cost on.

rogerkirkness 3y ago

As a Canadian, I am curious where I can buy this $310k overpriced house.

deathanatos 3y ago
My mother recently sent me a listing at about that price. Middle of the desert, New Mexico. ($350k, 1.5k sq ft., 3bd, 1.1ba. Quemado, NM.)
gosub100 3y ago
1300 sq. ft, $99k https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/36-1st-St-Mc-Gill-NV-89318/2063476027_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/36-1st-St-Mc-Gill-NV-8931...
lenerdenator 3y ago
Kansas City, MO.