Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Less Taxing
Ignoring, for a moment, the painful irony of a former school teacher choosing not to pay taxes that benefit public schools, check out an article from today's Marin IJ on how some Marin seniors can opt out of parcel taxes. In truth, the article is about a snafu by the tax collector, but the reason for this post is to bring awareness to our "boomer-ish" Marin readers (or readers with boomer-ish parents) who may not be aware of this program. We'd remind you that it's Marin's excellent schools that are partly the reason for our high property values, but we also know that when budgets get tight, this kind of relief can make a big difference.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Feels Like Drought
December was a weird month, real estate-wise. Sure, it's always a quiet time in the real estate market, but this year it was practically silent. Buyers kept asking us, "Where's all the inventory?" Everyone wondered if there were really as few homes for sale as it seemed. Then this appeared today, showing that, indeed, there really weren't many homes for sale. We've seen a perceptible uptick in January, but hardly what we'd call a deluge.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The Barbell Effect
In the private school world, financial aid administrators often refer to the "barbell effect." The term was coined to explain what happens when very high tuition and large financial aid awards combine to create a school community with a bunch of wealthy families supporting a bunch of economically disadvantaged families in the name of diversity. Meanwhile, middle income families who can neither afford the tuition nor qualify for financial awards are largely squeezed out.
For the purposes of discussion, we wonder "aloud" whether something similar could be happening in the world of real estate. To wit...today's blurb on sfgate.com mentions that the upper end of the SF market is up recently and down only slightly year-over-year, while the lower and of the market has fallen by better than 9%. Put another way, if you've got a lot of money to begin with, your recent real estate investment has been relatively sound. Meanwhile, if you entered the bottom of the market a year ago, your investment has under-performed.
Okay. Admittedly, the private school analogy is a reach. But we wonder nevertheless why the "value" end of the market doesn't seem to be much of a value?
For the purposes of discussion, we wonder "aloud" whether something similar could be happening in the world of real estate. To wit...today's blurb on sfgate.com mentions that the upper end of the SF market is up recently and down only slightly year-over-year, while the lower and of the market has fallen by better than 9%. Put another way, if you've got a lot of money to begin with, your recent real estate investment has been relatively sound. Meanwhile, if you entered the bottom of the market a year ago, your investment has under-performed.
Okay. Admittedly, the private school analogy is a reach. But we wonder nevertheless why the "value" end of the market doesn't seem to be much of a value?
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Hold Your Breath
Check out this article for the latest news on Marin homeowners who are underwater. More than you thought? Fewer? Share your thoughts....
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Listings Lately?
And now for the self-serving portion of our blog...Here are a few of the properties we've listed or sold lately.
20 Rowley Circle
2169 Green Street #3
www.1383Masonic.com
9 Via Vandyke (representing buyer)
7 Castle Rock (representing buyer)
20 Rowley Circle
2169 Green Street #3
www.1383Masonic.com
9 Via Vandyke (representing buyer)
7 Castle Rock (representing buyer)
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The End Is Near (Again)
Check out the latest update from the Marin IJ on Marin foreclosure activity. We particularly enjoyed the quote from a competing broker, "This may be the point where we look back and say it's starting to go in another direction." If we had a loan modification for every time we'd read that, we'd be going in another direction by now. Not that we disagree with him, mind you. It's just that we think market shifts are like potholes; you never see them until they're in the rear view mirror (and usually your tire's blown out by then).
Monday, July 18, 2011
Foreclosure Database
Because of the seemingly never-ending fascination with distress sales, we thought we'd again offer up the link to the Marin County foreclosure database.
As always, we add the caveat that many homes that are in the foreclosure process, especially those that have received a Notice of Default, may never be offered for sale. In some cases, homeowners have "deliberately" gone into default as part of a strategy to achieve a loan modification.
More advice...be cautious when pursuing foreclosures. Auctions on the court house steps are the first place that novices stumble. But even when purchasing through an agent, disclosures are limited and contracts tend to heavily favor the bank's interests. Do your risk/reward calculations carefully. And, as ever, please buy and sell real estate responsibly. We're always here to help.
As always, we add the caveat that many homes that are in the foreclosure process, especially those that have received a Notice of Default, may never be offered for sale. In some cases, homeowners have "deliberately" gone into default as part of a strategy to achieve a loan modification.
More advice...be cautious when pursuing foreclosures. Auctions on the court house steps are the first place that novices stumble. But even when purchasing through an agent, disclosures are limited and contracts tend to heavily favor the bank's interests. Do your risk/reward calculations carefully. And, as ever, please buy and sell real estate responsibly. We're always here to help.
Safety First
For our many Mill Valley-centric clients, friends, and readers (and with apologies to those that aren't), here's a worthwhile read about Mill Valley's approach to disaster preparedness.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Op-Ed(ucation)
A client sent us a link to a Times article yesterday. This is a client who's hoping to sell their house and this article paints none-too-pretty a picture. Give it a gander. Then come back to your favorite real estate blog and read below for my response to our client. (Reproduced with their permission, of course.)
"Interesting article. The two things I think the writer gets right are:
1. The illiquid real estate market is stagnating
2. The “shadow inventory” being a real issue
"In a more liquid market, prices drop rapidly until the market “reaches” the buyers. In real estate, prices tend to fall more slowly. The thing people forgot in the past decade is that real estate is fundamentally a long term, illiquid investment. You can’t just wake up one morning and decide to sell your property, as if it were stock in IBM. Admittedly, it seemed that way for a long time, but that’s not a normal reality for real estate. The liquidity of the market was, in part, a function of the liquidity of the mortgage market. Now that the mortgage market is tighter, so is the real estate market. Seems obvious, but we all sort of lost sight of this.
"I actually addressed the “shadow” market in a recent mailing. This is my biggest concern about the future, though it may come to nothing. There’s hard data (something not heavily embraced by the writer of the article) that says that the banks are holding back foreclosure inventory to prevent a flood on the market that would drive values down. In one sense, this is very troubling. Part of me wants to just let the bank-owned (REO) inventory sell off so we can see where we really stand, even if it means driving prices down; like letting a wildfire burn off all of the underbrush to allow for new growth. It might be painful, but at least it would be over. In another sense, it’s very reassuring. As long as the banks maintain this approach, property values should be somewhat protected. We might be able to pull the Band Aid off slowly enough that we hardly notice how much it hurts. (Excuse the mixed metaphor.) By all accounts, the banks learned their lesson in early 2009 when they released too much REO inventory at once and cannibalized their own market. Regardless, the shadow inventory makes people nervous, and for legitimate reasons.
"There is a doom and gloom school of thought that says that we have years to go before we hit bottom. This is clearly the point of view of the writer. Fair enough. Indeed, the notion that a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house ought to sell for $800,000, regardless of where it’s located, is, on its face, a little ridiculous. You could build a house for half that price. But this premise is built on a willingness to throw out decades of economic history. From 1970 to 2006, the median price of a home in Marin County went up every year, except for 1990 and 1991. Suddenly the price of a Marin County home is supposed to drop by 300%? I suppose anything is possible, but this seems unlikely unless a full scale reassessment of our economy is in process. And if you believe that prices will fall significantly further over the coming years, then that argues for selling now, while you can still get somewhat close to the top of the market.
"I am far from a glass-half-full person by nature. In fact, I tend to be a worst-case-scenario person. I willingly admit that things could get worse before they get better. But I think it’s worth noting that the writer’s source for the opinion that the price of an $800,000 home in the Bay Area is “unrealistically high” is a “blogger”; not an economist. (I have a blog, too, but I don’t expect to be quoted in the Times.) I’m cautiously optimistic about the market. In fact, I plan to invest myself in the next 12 months. These kinds of articles always smack of the blame game to me. It is popular to blast Realtors or NAR as being a false engine driving an unrealistic real estate market. It’s a fair critique, but one that’s based primarily in opinion, not fact. It’s a kneejerk reaction, like blaming SUV drivers for the war in Iraq; there may be a residue of truth to it, but certainly the real story is more complex. (Should we blame Best Buy when someone replaces a perfectly good, eight year-old television with a new 50” HD flat screen that they can barely afford?) There is very little actual data in the article. I don’t necessarily disagree with its premise, but I’m not sure I like its methodology.
"For whatever it’s worth ( I’d have to check to be sure), I think I’ve worked on more transactions in the past 12 months than in any previous 12 month period over the past five years. The point? Houses are still selling. Buyers are still buying. Lenders are still lending. I guess I question somewhat the motivation of the writer of the article. I agree that there’s plenty of bad news out there. We can all throw our hands up and decide that the sky is falling. Or we can put our nose back to the ground, get to work, and see if we can solve this."
"Interesting article. The two things I think the writer gets right are:
1. The illiquid real estate market is stagnating
2. The “shadow inventory” being a real issue
"In a more liquid market, prices drop rapidly until the market “reaches” the buyers. In real estate, prices tend to fall more slowly. The thing people forgot in the past decade is that real estate is fundamentally a long term, illiquid investment. You can’t just wake up one morning and decide to sell your property, as if it were stock in IBM. Admittedly, it seemed that way for a long time, but that’s not a normal reality for real estate. The liquidity of the market was, in part, a function of the liquidity of the mortgage market. Now that the mortgage market is tighter, so is the real estate market. Seems obvious, but we all sort of lost sight of this.
"I actually addressed the “shadow” market in a recent mailing. This is my biggest concern about the future, though it may come to nothing. There’s hard data (something not heavily embraced by the writer of the article) that says that the banks are holding back foreclosure inventory to prevent a flood on the market that would drive values down. In one sense, this is very troubling. Part of me wants to just let the bank-owned (REO) inventory sell off so we can see where we really stand, even if it means driving prices down; like letting a wildfire burn off all of the underbrush to allow for new growth. It might be painful, but at least it would be over. In another sense, it’s very reassuring. As long as the banks maintain this approach, property values should be somewhat protected. We might be able to pull the Band Aid off slowly enough that we hardly notice how much it hurts. (Excuse the mixed metaphor.) By all accounts, the banks learned their lesson in early 2009 when they released too much REO inventory at once and cannibalized their own market. Regardless, the shadow inventory makes people nervous, and for legitimate reasons.
"There is a doom and gloom school of thought that says that we have years to go before we hit bottom. This is clearly the point of view of the writer. Fair enough. Indeed, the notion that a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house ought to sell for $800,000, regardless of where it’s located, is, on its face, a little ridiculous. You could build a house for half that price. But this premise is built on a willingness to throw out decades of economic history. From 1970 to 2006, the median price of a home in Marin County went up every year, except for 1990 and 1991. Suddenly the price of a Marin County home is supposed to drop by 300%? I suppose anything is possible, but this seems unlikely unless a full scale reassessment of our economy is in process. And if you believe that prices will fall significantly further over the coming years, then that argues for selling now, while you can still get somewhat close to the top of the market.
"I am far from a glass-half-full person by nature. In fact, I tend to be a worst-case-scenario person. I willingly admit that things could get worse before they get better. But I think it’s worth noting that the writer’s source for the opinion that the price of an $800,000 home in the Bay Area is “unrealistically high” is a “blogger”; not an economist. (I have a blog, too, but I don’t expect to be quoted in the Times.) I’m cautiously optimistic about the market. In fact, I plan to invest myself in the next 12 months. These kinds of articles always smack of the blame game to me. It is popular to blast Realtors or NAR as being a false engine driving an unrealistic real estate market. It’s a fair critique, but one that’s based primarily in opinion, not fact. It’s a kneejerk reaction, like blaming SUV drivers for the war in Iraq; there may be a residue of truth to it, but certainly the real story is more complex. (Should we blame Best Buy when someone replaces a perfectly good, eight year-old television with a new 50” HD flat screen that they can barely afford?) There is very little actual data in the article. I don’t necessarily disagree with its premise, but I’m not sure I like its methodology.
"For whatever it’s worth ( I’d have to check to be sure), I think I’ve worked on more transactions in the past 12 months than in any previous 12 month period over the past five years. The point? Houses are still selling. Buyers are still buying. Lenders are still lending. I guess I question somewhat the motivation of the writer of the article. I agree that there’s plenty of bad news out there. We can all throw our hands up and decide that the sky is falling. Or we can put our nose back to the ground, get to work, and see if we can solve this."
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Old School, New School, Bad School?
It's a dilmma for every San Francisco parent (and the source of a huge percentage of our Marin County referrals). What are parents of school-age kids to do? Contrary to popular opinion, most parents we know would love to send their children to public school in San Francisco. The problem? 0 for 7. For the uninitiated, o for 7 has become scary shorthand for being assigned to a kindergarten that was not among any of parents' top seven choices. Say "0 for 7" to almost any parent in the City and prepare to hear a rant.
Today's Chron features an article that hightlights the issue. Recent reforms may address some of the problems. But we're guessing the rants will continue.
Today's Chron features an article that hightlights the issue. Recent reforms may address some of the problems. But we're guessing the rants will continue.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Numbers Don't Lie (but they may fib a little bit)
"Economix," a blog that appears on NYTimes.com, can be an interesting read for those curious about a more scientific approach to the national real estate market. Today's post by Harvard economist Edward Glaeser, looks at hard data for mortgage approval rates and loan-to-value ratios. The findings are inconclusive. In short, approval rates and LTV ratios were not significantly different during the real estate boom than they were in the years before. Statistical analysis, of course, is designed to take anecdotal observation out of the equation or even, as in this case, conventional wisdom. From a Realtor's perspective, this is a little like looking at a barometer to tell you when it's raining. Most of us would just walk outside and see if we got wet. Nevertheless, it's interesting to see that the data does not necessarily bear out what we might expect. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle.
A previous entry in the blog tells us that housing prices peaked in May, 2006. This is a nationwide measure. Our considered, Marin-and-San-Francisco-centric opinion, is that our local markets first faltered in September, 2007. It would be reasonable that the boom in these areas would last longer than the nation's s a whole, due to more favorable economic factors and the relative lack of new construction. Why do we pick September, 2007? Because that was the month when we first heard about Jumbo mortgages failing to fund. This is a strictly anecdotal, but, we believe, entirely accurate conclusion.
We find it useful to compare local market observations and national market data to help inform our understanding of where we were, how we got there, and where we're going. If you are a Times or WSJ reader who tends to get caught up in national or even statewide statistics, remember there are always stories closer to home that may paint a different picture. And we're always happy to tell them.
A previous entry in the blog tells us that housing prices peaked in May, 2006. This is a nationwide measure. Our considered, Marin-and-San-Francisco-centric opinion, is that our local markets first faltered in September, 2007. It would be reasonable that the boom in these areas would last longer than the nation's s a whole, due to more favorable economic factors and the relative lack of new construction. Why do we pick September, 2007? Because that was the month when we first heard about Jumbo mortgages failing to fund. This is a strictly anecdotal, but, we believe, entirely accurate conclusion.
We find it useful to compare local market observations and national market data to help inform our understanding of where we were, how we got there, and where we're going. If you are a Times or WSJ reader who tends to get caught up in national or even statewide statistics, remember there are always stories closer to home that may paint a different picture. And we're always happy to tell them.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Second to One?
There are so many reasons not to buy foreclosure properties at auction, it's hard to know where to begin. Want to know just a few reasons, check out this article from the SF Chron on one family's unfortunate trip to the courthouse steps.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The More Things Change...
These days, no news seems like the best news when it comes to the real estate market. And no news is just what we got last week when the June median home price for Marin County came in virtually unchanged from 2009. In an odd sort of way, this jibes with what we've been experiencing on the street. Sellers have been saying, "It sure seems like prices have gone up this year." (Hopeful thinking.) While buyers keep telling us, "I think the market is still going down." (More hopeful thinking.) It would appear that, as usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
If you're looking for the glass-half-full take on the data, it's this...The number of units sold was up over 6% while the median price stayed nearly flat. Why is this news? Because until recently, the only thing that drove unit sales was falling prices. An upturn in activity without a corresponding decline in values is, in our opinion, an indicator of a market that's finding it's footing. And that's probably good news for everyone.
If you're looking for the glass-half-full take on the data, it's this...The number of units sold was up over 6% while the median price stayed nearly flat. Why is this news? Because until recently, the only thing that drove unit sales was falling prices. An upturn in activity without a corresponding decline in values is, in our opinion, an indicator of a market that's finding it's footing. And that's probably good news for everyone.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Fuel for the Fire?
In nature, they say that wildfires and forest fires are part of the natural cycle. They clean out the dead and dying vegetation in one violent burn and set seed for a whole new generation of growth. Sure, it can be terrifying to watch as thousands of acres burn, but it may just be what mother nature ordered. In fact, sometimes the best choice is to just let the fire burn itself out until all the fuel is used up.
Of course, the issue gets cloudier when we find out that a fire wasn't started by a random lightning strike or other natural spark. We tend to feel differently when we find out that human negligence was involved. A cigarette butt tossed out a window or a camp fire left untended. When a fire was set deliberately by some nefarious individual, we may even be furious. And when that fire burns houses instead of mere trees and brush, we become enraged.
Which brings is to another buried lead in this article from sfgate.com. While it is certainly notable that the upper end of the market is feeling the foreclosure pinch, more interesting is the acknowledgement that banks are holding back REO inventory to prevent a freefall in property values. If you're a buyer looking for a bargain, you may find this irritating. If you're a pure free marketer, you may find it manipulative. But if you would prefer to see property values stay within shouting distance of where they were a few years ago, this doesn't seem like the worst strategy. Sure, it's in the banks' interest, since they're sitting on more real estate than they ever expected to own. But it's not necessarily bad for regular Joes or Joans who own just one or two properties and would prefer not to see those values decline even further.
How does this relate to a forest fire? The first question is, are we better off just letting this one burn itself out. Are bank-owned properties just so much fuel for the fire and does the long term health of our real estate forest depend on letting that fuel get used up in one massive inferno. (Forgive the belabored metaphor.) Or should should we control this burn and even try to put it out. And does it change the way you answer when you factor in the notion that human greed, negligence, and (cue the conspiracy theories) intent may have been the spark that started the blaze. Where do you stand?
Of course, the issue gets cloudier when we find out that a fire wasn't started by a random lightning strike or other natural spark. We tend to feel differently when we find out that human negligence was involved. A cigarette butt tossed out a window or a camp fire left untended. When a fire was set deliberately by some nefarious individual, we may even be furious. And when that fire burns houses instead of mere trees and brush, we become enraged.
Which brings is to another buried lead in this article from sfgate.com. While it is certainly notable that the upper end of the market is feeling the foreclosure pinch, more interesting is the acknowledgement that banks are holding back REO inventory to prevent a freefall in property values. If you're a buyer looking for a bargain, you may find this irritating. If you're a pure free marketer, you may find it manipulative. But if you would prefer to see property values stay within shouting distance of where they were a few years ago, this doesn't seem like the worst strategy. Sure, it's in the banks' interest, since they're sitting on more real estate than they ever expected to own. But it's not necessarily bad for regular Joes or Joans who own just one or two properties and would prefer not to see those values decline even further.
How does this relate to a forest fire? The first question is, are we better off just letting this one burn itself out. Are bank-owned properties just so much fuel for the fire and does the long term health of our real estate forest depend on letting that fuel get used up in one massive inferno. (Forgive the belabored metaphor.) Or should should we control this burn and even try to put it out. And does it change the way you answer when you factor in the notion that human greed, negligence, and (cue the conspiracy theories) intent may have been the spark that started the blaze. Where do you stand?
Friday, May 28, 2010
A Leg...Sideways?
Until about three years ago, home ownership seemed like the key to a better life for nearly every American. A first step up the financial ladder. And even before risky loans and reckless borrowing brought the dream to its knees, a more honorable approach to first-time home buying emerged in the form of "Below Market Rate" housing. Cities and counties throughout California began requiring that developers set aside a certain portion of new housing units in a particular development to be included in BMR programs that would allow people to own real estate who would ordinarily never have been able to afford it.
Sounds like a noble endeavor all the way around.
So check out this article in the Marin IJ. It's nominally about how the financial crisis is forcing counties to revisit how they handle these BMR programs and how this is causing an uproar among buyers of regular market rate units in those developments. The buried lead, however, can be found in paragraph three: Buyers of BMR units "must sell them at about the same price they purchased them for."
Forget for a moment that there's a financial crisis going on. Pretend it's business as usual in the world of real estate. Can anyone explain how a BMR program is supposed to help someone get a leg up in the world if the appreciation potential of the investment is essentially nil. We're not economists, but this has troubled and confused us for years. SF has a similar program and it's never made sense to us. Shouldn't BMR units at least be able to appreciate at rates similar to comparable unit in the development? Otherwise, what's the point? All the headaches of homeownership (repairs, maintenance or HOA dues) with hardly any of the financial benefits?
We welcome your thoughts on this. It's something we've wondered about for years.
Sounds like a noble endeavor all the way around.
So check out this article in the Marin IJ. It's nominally about how the financial crisis is forcing counties to revisit how they handle these BMR programs and how this is causing an uproar among buyers of regular market rate units in those developments. The buried lead, however, can be found in paragraph three: Buyers of BMR units "must sell them at about the same price they purchased them for."
Forget for a moment that there's a financial crisis going on. Pretend it's business as usual in the world of real estate. Can anyone explain how a BMR program is supposed to help someone get a leg up in the world if the appreciation potential of the investment is essentially nil. We're not economists, but this has troubled and confused us for years. SF has a similar program and it's never made sense to us. Shouldn't BMR units at least be able to appreciate at rates similar to comparable unit in the development? Otherwise, what's the point? All the headaches of homeownership (repairs, maintenance or HOA dues) with hardly any of the financial benefits?
We welcome your thoughts on this. It's something we've wondered about for years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
