Anonymous wrote:But it’s true! A crash is inevitable because the next generation just can’t afford houses.
There’s no way my house is worth a million dollars. I behave accordingly.
Anonymous wrote:The problem with forecasting a crash is that it's cheap to own a house right now for most homeowners. Between people with no mortgage and people with sub 5% mortgages (especially sub 3% mortgages), only a small number of current owners are struggling to afford their house. That's why there's no rush to list unaffordable houses/triggering foreclosures, but there's also no rush to list houses by people with cheap mortgages feeling the gilded cage effect and depressing the demand to move up, which also depresses the inventory. And it's why rates may be high but prices are still high.
In many cities and countries, the average person cannot own a house. But house prices remain high and are in no danger of crashing. It's because the demand is met by the people who can afford to own. Two different populations. We see the same in NYC or DC or California.
Realistically, the only way out of this situation is to either flood the market with new housing (impossible in many places) or slow and gradual adjustment from rising incomes overtaking housing appreciation. The latter is much more likely but will take a long time. As long as a decade.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is true that homes are grossly overvalued in much of the US and Canada. Income doesn't support these prices, particularly with higher interest rates. Average income and average home prices are completely out of whack by historical standards. But how it unravels is anyone's guess. Home prices continued to go ever up in 2007, and then collapsed in 2008. The difference this time is that the banks are in good shape. So I'm not sure how we get to a more balanced real estate market this time. But invariably, home prices and income will revert to an equilibrium. But how and when is unclear.
I think it depends on what you mean by balanced. Gradual slowing of price increases and some decreases seems very probable. A crash does not. SFHs in desirable areas aren't going to lose much value. One reason is that we haven't built enough homes to keep up with demand since the crash. And now that we have higher interest rates the building that has been happening will start to slow.
You are right. But the reason is not that we haven't built enough homes. There is no more land to build more houses in DC and its close-in neighborhoods. Enough houses are being built in the exurb but people want to live close to DC. The supply of houses in DC can never increase to keep up with the demand. That's why prices in DC will never drop.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is true that homes are grossly overvalued in much of the US and Canada. Income doesn't support these prices, particularly with higher interest rates. Average income and average home prices are completely out of whack by historical standards. But how it unravels is anyone's guess. Home prices continued to go ever up in 2007, and then collapsed in 2008. The difference this time is that the banks are in good shape. So I'm not sure how we get to a more balanced real estate market this time. But invariably, home prices and income will revert to an equilibrium. But how and when is unclear.
I think it depends on what you mean by balanced. Gradual slowing of price increases and some decreases seems very probable. A crash does not. SFHs in desirable areas aren't going to lose much value. One reason is that we haven't built enough homes to keep up with demand since the crash. And now that we have higher interest rates the building that has been happening will start to slow.
Anonymous wrote:The problem with forecasting a crash is that it's cheap to own a house right now for most homeowners. Between people with no mortgage and people with sub 5% mortgages (especially sub 3% mortgages), only a small number of current owners are struggling to afford their house. That's why there's no rush to list unaffordable houses/triggering foreclosures, but there's also no rush to list houses by people with cheap mortgages feeling the gilded cage effect and depressing the demand to move up, which also depresses the inventory. And it's why rates may be high but prices are still high.
In many cities and countries, the average person cannot own a house. But house prices remain high and are in no danger of crashing. It's because the demand is met by the people who can afford to own. Two different populations. We see the same in NYC or DC or California.
Realistically, the only way out of this situation is to either flood the market with new housing (impossible in many places) or slow and gradual adjustment from rising incomes overtaking housing appreciation. The latter is much more likely but will take a long time. As long as a decade.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The problem with forecasting a crash is that it's cheap to own a house right now for most homeowners. Between people with no mortgage and people with sub 5% mortgages (especially sub 3% mortgages), only a small number of current owners are struggling to afford their house. That's why there's no rush to list unaffordable houses/triggering foreclosures, but there's also no rush to list houses by people with cheap mortgages feeling the gilded cage effect and depressing the demand to move up, which also depresses the inventory. And it's why rates may be high but prices are still high.
In many cities and countries, the average person cannot own a house. But house prices remain high and are in no danger of crashing. It's because the demand is met by the people who can afford to own. Two different populations. We see the same in NYC or DC or California.
Realistically, the only way out of this situation is to either flood the market with new housing (impossible in many places) or slow and gradual adjustment from rising incomes overtaking housing appreciation. The latter is much more likely but will take a long time. As long as a decade.
Who will build the homes ?
Anonymous wrote:The problem with forecasting a crash is that it's cheap to own a house right now for most homeowners. Between people with no mortgage and people with sub 5% mortgages (especially sub 3% mortgages), only a small number of current owners are struggling to afford their house. That's why there's no rush to list unaffordable houses/triggering foreclosures, but there's also no rush to list houses by people with cheap mortgages feeling the gilded cage effect and depressing the demand to move up, which also depresses the inventory. And it's why rates may be high but prices are still high.
In many cities and countries, the average person cannot own a house. But house prices remain high and are in no danger of crashing. It's because the demand is met by the people who can afford to own. Two different populations. We see the same in NYC or DC or California.
Realistically, the only way out of this situation is to either flood the market with new housing (impossible in many places) or slow and gradual adjustment from rising incomes overtaking housing appreciation. The latter is much more likely but will take a long time. As long as a decade.
Anonymous wrote:People need to stop thinking of their houses like their personal piggy banks. My house was purchased for 700k in 2015 and now is 1.1m. I don’t think it’s worth that much even though I know it would sell for more than that (we did nicer renovations than they realize).
Home ownership should be prized for stability for kids and being cheaper than renting.
Anonymous wrote:People need to stop thinking of their houses like their personal piggy banks. My house was purchased for 700k in 2015 and now is 1.1m. I don’t think it’s worth that much even though I know it would sell for more than that (we did nicer renovations than they realize).
Home ownership should be prized for stability for kids and being cheaper than renting.