Federal Reserve: signs abound that housing market is entering bubble territory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We read it. But don’t agree with all of the hysterical conclusions.

^
And yes, we noticed the quick shifting from saying "FOMO" over and over again (while attempting to deride current home buyers) to saying "irrational exuberance" instead. We still see you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We read it. But don’t agree with all of the hysterical conclusions.

^
And yes, we noticed the quick shifting from saying "FOMO" over and over again (while attempting to deride current home buyers) to saying "irrational exuberance" instead. We still see you.

Those terms are literally referring to the same thing and are both widely used. Why are you taking this so personally?

[Anonymous]

Even Redfin is saying that the “market is turning.”

https://www.redfin.com/news/housing-market-update-early-signs-of-a-slowdown/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We read it. But don’t agree with all of the hysterical conclusions.

^
And yes, we noticed the quick shifting from saying "FOMO" over and over again (while attempting to deride current home buyers) to saying "irrational exuberance" instead. We still see you.

FYI, I wrote the quoted comment and I’ve never once used the phrase FOMO in this thread or any other (this sentence excepted, obviously).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From 2018: “ The housing market has generally recovered. Prices across the U.S., which fell 33 percent during the recession, have rebounded and are now up more than 50 percent since hitting the bottom, according to CoreLogic, a global property analytics site. Still, some markets in Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Nevada have yet to reach their pre-recession levels.” It depends on the local market and how overvalued the individual asset was at the peak. People who are paying 40% overvalue now could take more than a decade to recover, even without an overall housing crash.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/10/04/feature/10-years-later-how-the-housing-market-has-changed-since-the-crash/

"About one-third of all mortgages in 2006 were low or no-documentation loans or subprime loans, says Nothaft."

Wow - I didn't realize it was such a high %. No wonder we had issues.

"“The share of mortgage applicants with FICO scores below 640 used to be around 25 percent and now it’s just three or four percent,” says Khater."

Right the mortgages we have now are less like to default due to better lending practices. We also don’t have a Wild West market in secondary derivatives the way we did in 2002-2007. INSTEAD, we have a Fed supported market and the Fed is about to divest. It’s not the same problem, but it’s still a serious problem. Why do people seem to think there only one way to create a housing market crisis? Issuing bad loans is ONE way to create an unstable market, but exuberant overextended buying spurred on by artificially low interest rates while the Fed buys up all the risk is another way to create a housing crisis. The Fed has been absorbing the risk of default, but now it’s going to start selling that risk back to lenders. That may go fine, or it may create an asset crisis. It wouldn’t be a crisis caused by subprime lending, but it could still be a crisis.

Agree. Keep trying, maybe you’ll break through to all of those in denial here.

NP I disagree that the Fed has been absorbing the risk. The Fed has been absorbing the *cost* of home buying, but not the risk. As interest rates rise, home buying will become more prohibitive to new buyers, but there will be no change to existing owners.

The Fed currently holds $700 billion in mortgage backed securities, which is 30% of the market. That’s an enormous share. Mortgage backed securities are securities that are secured by mortgages (or more accurately, the collection of mortgages or the right to collect mortgages). Mortgages are aggregated (bundles together) and sold as packages to investors. They are sold for less than the full aggregate value of the total bundled mortgages because the buyer is assuming the risk of default. For example, if I am a lender holding a $100 mortgage from a homeowner, I might sell it to the Fed for $70 (depending on how likely it is to default). I get rid of the risk of default and the Fed picks up a $30 profit if the mortgage is paid as agreed. The Fed has now assumed the risk of default. If the homeowner defaults, the Fed’s asset is potentially worth less than $70 (how much less depends on what can be recouped at foreclosure less the cost of foreclosure itself). The holder of the mortgage backed security is assuming the risk of underlying default. That’s why Lehman Brothers etc almost went under: because when the market collapsed they were holding billions of dollars of suddenly worthless MBS.

So returning to the current situation: the Fed now owns more MBS than any other single holder (and a higher percentage than it ever has). So the Fed has been propping up the market by assuming an outsized share of the risk of default. It is now going to start selling off its portfolio of MBS. Maybe that’s fine, and maybe it’s not. No one knows for sure because we’ve never had a situation like this before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From 2018: “ The housing market has generally recovered. Prices across the U.S., which fell 33 percent during the recession, have rebounded and are now up more than 50 percent since hitting the bottom, according to CoreLogic, a global property analytics site. Still, some markets in Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Nevada have yet to reach their pre-recession levels.” It depends on the local market and how overvalued the individual asset was at the peak. People who are paying 40% overvalue now could take more than a decade to recover, even without an overall housing crash.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/10/04/feature/10-years-later-how-the-housing-market-has-changed-since-the-crash/

"About one-third of all mortgages in 2006 were low or no-documentation loans or subprime loans, says Nothaft."

Wow - I didn't realize it was such a high %. No wonder we had issues.

"“The share of mortgage applicants with FICO scores below 640 used to be around 25 percent and now it’s just three or four percent,” says Khater."

Right the mortgages we have now are less like to default due to better lending practices. We also don’t have a Wild West market in secondary derivatives the way we did in 2002-2007. INSTEAD, we have a Fed supported market and the Fed is about to divest. It’s not the same problem, but it’s still a serious problem. Why do people seem to think there only one way to create a housing market crisis? Issuing bad loans is ONE way to create an unstable market, but exuberant overextended buying spurred on by artificially low interest rates while the Fed buys up all the risk is another way to create a housing crisis. The Fed has been absorbing the risk of default, but now it’s going to start selling that risk back to lenders. That may go fine, or it may create an asset crisis. It wouldn’t be a crisis caused by subprime lending, but it could still be a crisis.

Agree. Keep trying, maybe you’ll break through to all of those in denial here.

NP I disagree that the Fed has been absorbing the risk. The Fed has been absorbing the *cost* of home buying, but not the risk. As interest rates rise, home buying will become more prohibitive to new buyers, but there will be no change to existing owners.

The Fed currently holds $700 billion in mortgage backed securities, which is 30% of the market. That’s an enormous share. Mortgage backed securities are securities that are secured by mortgages (or more accurately, the collection of mortgages or the right to collect mortgages). Mortgages are aggregated (bundles together) and sold as packages to investors. They are sold for less than the full aggregate value of the total bundled mortgages because the buyer is assuming the risk of default. For example, if I am a lender holding a $100 mortgage from a homeowner, I might sell it to the Fed for $70 (depending on how likely it is to default). I get rid of the risk of default and the Fed picks up a $30 profit if the mortgage is paid as agreed. The Fed has now assumed the risk of default. If the homeowner defaults, the Fed’s asset is potentially worth less than $70 (how much less depends on what can be recouped at foreclosure less the cost of foreclosure itself). The holder of the mortgage backed security is assuming the risk of underlying default. That’s why Lehman Brothers etc almost went under: because when the market collapsed they were holding billions of dollars of suddenly worthless MBS.

So returning to the current situation: the Fed now owns more MBS than any other single holder (and a higher percentage than it ever has). So the Fed has been propping up the market by assuming an outsized share of the risk of default. It is now going to start selling off its portfolio of MBS. Maybe that’s fine, and maybe it’s not. No one knows for sure because we’ve never had a situation like this before.

Correction: the Fed has 2 trillion in MBS, $700 billion of which it purchased since 2020. Which it is now going to begin selling. It is difficult to overstate how unusual a moment this is in the housing market.

https://www.msci.com/research-and-insights/insights-gallery/mbs-owned-by-the-federal-reserve

[Fffggg123]

Why is this area losing population? My impression was the opposite with Tysons city being built and Amazon HQ

[Anonymous]

Fffggg123 wrote:Why is this area losing population? My impression was the opposite with Tysons city being built and Amazon HQ

Many reasons: https://www.npr.org/local/305/2021/12/23/1067215177/new-census-data-finds-d-c-had-nation-s-largest-percentage-drop-in-population

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Fffggg123 wrote:Why is this area losing population? My impression was the opposite with Tysons city being built and Amazon HQ

Many reasons: https://www.npr.org/local/305/2021/12/23/1067215177/new-census-data-finds-d-c-had-nation-s-largest-percentage-drop-in-population

What are the demographics of people leaving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even Redfin is saying that the “market is turning.”

https://www.redfin.com/news/housing-market-update-early-signs-of-a-slowdown/

Still, the market still feels very hot, with homes selling faster and for more money than ever before. That’s largely because supply remains near record lows, with fewer homeowners putting their homes on the market.

“Homebuyers may not feel like the market has gotten any easier. That’s because they’re often competing against investors, all-cash buyers and migrants from expensive cities who aren’t as sensitive to mortgage rates,” said Redfin Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather. “But there are early indicators that the market is turning, and we expect the softening to become more apparent in the coming weeks, eventually causing home-price growth to slow. We’ll be watching closely to see whether the market slows from 100 miles per hour to 90 or 100 miles per hour to 75.”

What's actionable about these predictions/observations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even Redfin is saying that the “market is turning.”

https://www.redfin.com/news/housing-market-update-early-signs-of-a-slowdown/

Still, the market still feels very hot, with homes selling faster and for more money than ever before. That’s largely because supply remains near record lows, with fewer homeowners putting their homes on the market.

“Homebuyers may not feel like the market has gotten any easier. That’s because they’re often competing against investors, all-cash buyers and migrants from expensive cities who aren’t as sensitive to mortgage rates,” said Redfin Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather. “But there are early indicators that the market is turning, and we expect the softening to become more apparent in the coming weeks, eventually causing home-price growth to slow. We’ll be watching closely to see whether the market slows from 100 miles per hour to 90 or 100 miles per hour to 75.”

What's actionable about these predictions/observations?

Don’t buy a house right now. Sell your house if you’re thinking about doing it soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even Redfin is saying that the “market is turning.”

https://www.redfin.com/news/housing-market-update-early-signs-of-a-slowdown/

Still, the market still feels very hot, with homes selling faster and for more money than ever before. That’s largely because supply remains near record lows, with fewer homeowners putting their homes on the market.

“Homebuyers may not feel like the market has gotten any easier. That’s because they’re often competing against investors, all-cash buyers and migrants from expensive cities who aren’t as sensitive to mortgage rates,” said Redfin Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather. “But there are early indicators that the market is turning, and we expect the softening to become more apparent in the coming weeks, eventually causing home-price growth to slow. We’ll be watching closely to see whether the market slows from 100 miles per hour to 90 or 100 miles per hour to 75.”

What's actionable about these predictions/observations?

Do you mean legally actionable? (In which case, nothing1) free speech; (2) these people aren’t your fiduciary and even if they were fiduciaries are allowed to be wrong; and (3) they aren’t wrong). Or do you mean “what action should I take in light of these predictions? (In which case: (1) sell now (right now) if you are planning to or need to sell in the next 24 months; (2) do nothing if you can afford your mortgage and are planning to stay more than a couple years and you can financially live with your house being valued at its 2019 valuation; (3) if you are trying to buy, postpone your plan to buy for at least 6 months to a year, even if it means renting and moving twice); (3) most importantly, don’t panic; don’t panic buy and don’t panic sell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even Redfin is saying that the “market is turning.”

https://www.redfin.com/news/housing-market-update-early-signs-of-a-slowdown/

Still, the market still feels very hot, with homes selling faster and for more money than ever before. That’s largely because supply remains near record lows, with fewer homeowners putting their homes on the market.

“Homebuyers may not feel like the market has gotten any easier. That’s because they’re often competing against investors, all-cash buyers and migrants from expensive cities who aren’t as sensitive to mortgage rates,” said Redfin Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather. “But there are early indicators that the market is turning, and we expect the softening to become more apparent in the coming weeks, eventually causing home-price growth to slow. We’ll be watching closely to see whether the market slows from 100 miles per hour to 90 or 100 miles per hour to 75.”

What's actionable about these predictions/observations?

Don’t buy a house right now. Sell your house if you’re thinking about doing it soon.

But they're not saying prices are going down, just that price increases will be slowing. At least that was my reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even Redfin is saying that the “market is turning.”

https://www.redfin.com/news/housing-market-update-early-signs-of-a-slowdown/

Still, the market still feels very hot, with homes selling faster and for more money than ever before. That’s largely because supply remains near record lows, with fewer homeowners putting their homes on the market.

“Homebuyers may not feel like the market has gotten any easier. That’s because they’re often competing against investors, all-cash buyers and migrants from expensive cities who aren’t as sensitive to mortgage rates,” said Redfin Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather. “But there are early indicators that the market is turning, and we expect the softening to become more apparent in the coming weeks, eventually causing home-price growth to slow. We’ll be watching closely to see whether the market slows from 100 miles per hour to 90 or 100 miles per hour to 75.”

What's actionable about these predictions/observations?

Don’t buy a house right now. Sell your house if you’re thinking about doing it soon.

But they're not saying prices are going down, just that price increases will be slowing. At least that was my reading.

No, they are saying, at a minimum, a correction. A correction means prices go down. The market has significantly overvalued housing, for a number of complicated reasons having to do with the pandemic, the behavior of the Fed (both interest rates and portfolio), and idiosyncratic local demographic behaviors. What is coming next is first a slow down then a correction, probably in a matter of weeks. The more conservative estimates put the correction at 2019 prices. Given unknown reaction to unusual buying trends and unusual Fed behavior, there is a nontrivial possibility of a much steeper decline. Either way, prices are going down and soon. Which should be fine for most people. Only people actively in the market or planning to enter the market really need to change their behavior based on this. Or those who are somehow counting of the artificial inflation of their house value between 2019 and now (say to pay for college or something) because that it an illusion. That money is not there for most people unless they sell at the current peak.

[Anonymous]

Why are people forgetting that there is a housing shortage, especially for single family homes. Construction of new hosing has not picked up. Rent prices in some places are almost as high as mortgages. People still have kids and need more space.

Home prices will not go down. But they will not grow at the same rate as they have the past few years. We’re likely to see a steady growth over a ten year period. By that time there will be more single family housing available. Things will balance out.