Unless the housing supply increases this will just be a temporary thing. As long as people are able to make their mortgage payments they typically won't sell their homes at a loss (even if their equity is negative). Some people will always be forced to sell due to life events and that's what will set current market comps. Since mortgage rates have recently spiked upwards people who need a mortgage to buy a home can afford less, so they either aren't buying or are buying a smaller/worse home than they would've previously.
But since most people aren't forced to sell, the available supply will shrink, which will push up prices eventually, until people can sell at a profit again. The rising rates also make it harder for developers to get loans, and lower prices make development projects riskier, compounding the supply problem.
> Unless the housing supply increases this will just be a temporary thing
I'll go a half-step further and say that unless this is a result of broad actions that have made home-building less costly, it will be temporary. Whenever house prices go down, home-builders become less incentivized to build new homes, and so less homes get built, and prices go up again. This will happen unless the price drop was a result of houses becoming easier to build
There should just be a pandemic or something that puts a lot of people out of work so that they have to sell at low prices so that large real estate companies can buy their houses and then rent them back to them. They can even have a reverse rental program that allows people to stay in their homes through the hard times and instead pay rent to the new owners.
I'm afraid I don't follow that. House-sellers are generally also house-buyers. They move out of one place into another. It's neutral with respect to supply.
If there's a glut of people owning houses but not living in them and not successfully renting them, then that does reduce supply, but they're also suffering opportunity cost. If they're willing to throw away money like that I don't think increasing supply would help -- they'd just buy up the new houses as well.
If someone sells a house for less than they purchased it their equity available to purchase another house decreases. Since mortgage rates have increased that means they can only afford a smaller/worse house (because they have less money to make a down payment with). So why would they sell in that situation unless they need to? People sell when their homes have appreciated because they have positive equity and can get a new mortgage, so they can buy a better home by rolling their existing equity into the new home as a down payment (they also don't pay capital gains when doing this and the interest on the new mortgage is deductible, making it attractive from a tax perspective).
Edit: I think I see where the confusion is. You are right that the literal supply of houses doesn't increase or decrease unless people stop/start renting or new homes are built. But the supply of houses available for purchase depends on whether people want to list them right now or not. Which is influenced by current prices because most people won't sell at a loss unless they have to.
Depends on life stage and other circumstances. They may be moving in with someone else, for example - anything from marriage to getting roommates to moving back in with the parents.
House sellers are generally those who have gone to meet the saints. They move from one place into another yes, but where they go they don't play any part in the housing market – I hope!
>Unless the housing supply increases this will just be a temporary thing.
The housing supply will increase dramatically in the next decade, not by building but by attrition.
More than 55% of all homes in America are owned by Silent Gens or Boomers[0]. That figure includes non-SFHs, of SFHs I've read they own >70% of (lost my source unfortunately). They are going to start dying of en masse within the next decade. That means A LOT of SFH are going to hit the market, all around the same time.
The share of millenials and genzers who are financially fit to even purchase a home are going to be far less than the amount of people who are dying.
For the non-believers, it's all written in the demographics. Unless we import a shit load of migrants who can also afford expensive real estate, or we print money so that institutions can buy these properties, the prices are going to sink like crazy.
Well their kids could live in them, or sell it and buy a different house to live in. Forecasting what the effect of that supply will be on prices seems hard to me. Housing units per capita is lower than it was 20 years ago[0] and I think if you could find a longer time series you would see the pattern continue back many decades. That timeseries also includes all housing, not just SFH. I think if you just looked at SFH the decline would be more dramatic.
> The share of millenials and genzers who are financially fit to even purchase a home are going to be far less than the amount of people who are dying.
I don't understand this sentence.
The number of houses that get sold or transferred to living people is of course exactly the same as the number of houses vacated by people who died. It can't be anything else since houses don't evaporate when the owner dies.
1) Not 55% from your article. Youngest boomer is 59. That's about middle of the 55-64. So split the difference, it's 43.8%. Millenials are larger than boomers. Gen X is larger than Silent generation. If your thesis of them not being able to buy when they die off is correct, well, see #2 and #4 below.
2) People that inherit don't have to sell. Many will simply rent as it could be tax advantageous. Or they move in.
3) Construction costs (labor, materials) will inflate minimizing new supply.
4) The Fed has no choice but to bring rates back down and keep printing. National debt is $33T which is crazy but unfunded liabilities are 211T! We're well on our way to paying 1T in annual interest. 65% of spending is mandatory. Debt historically % of GDP is 46.9%. End of 2022 - 97%. [1]. Interest rates cannot remain historically elevated and the only way out of the debt load is to print print print. This helps assets and affordability (debt service) for investors and the genx, millenials to acquire. The US and world got drunk off a cheap dollar.
So I disagree on the macro of your thesis. Certainly some areas will be affected though with boomer/silent passings but that will be due to a demographic change in demand, gen x and younger not desiring those areas for numerous reasons.
I'll be holding assets as inflation continues, and probably rips again in the near future. It will be traditional inflation (actual economy) or inflation in the financial economy (stocks, assets). One or both have to rip from inflation. There's no way out of the debt load.
> Unless we import a shit load of migrants who can also afford expensive real estate, or we print money so that institutions can buy these properties, the prices are going to sink like crazy.
Likely the powers that be will print money to hand over to institutions to gobble up real estate who will then rent out the properties to the incoming mass migration wave into the US. Most of these new arrivals have a almost zero percent chance of becoming home owners with the current pricing and wage suppression going on.
It seems to me various real estate investment groups have essentially unlimited lines of credit to buy up properties. On the commercial side they seemingly can ride out many of their units being empty for YEARS.
>> They are going to start dying of en masse within the next decade. That means A LOT of SFH are going to hit the market, all around the same time.
80% of the silent generation is already dead along with 33% of the baby boomers. Between them, around 8,000 people die every day, and that has been going on for quite a while.
When do you expect this to start having an effect on prices?
Selling at a loss is dependent on your cost basis, and fortunately most owners didn’t buy within the last few years of dramatically overinflated prices.
I wonder if there is a difference, as far as housing market fluctuations go, between an aging person who passes away and leaves their home to their heirs and one who sells their home before they pass away in order to fund their retirement/healthcare.
Obviously the outcome for the family is very different and worth examining, but for the moment I'm considering the broader impact on the housing market.
In the 20 or so years I have lived on a small dead-end street with about 16 homes, and where homes that went on the market sold within the first three days and sometimes the first three hours, it has only been in the last 60 days that I have seen a house where the sellers have twice cut the price by greater than 10% each time and the house yet languishes unsold.
The historical housing bubble was caused by artificially low interest rates adopted worldwide. Ever-increasing housing prices is bad for people who own homes (higher property taxes, property tax distortions across cities, higher fees when changing houses) and those who don't own any. Low interest rates discourage saving and encourage unproductive speculation and house flipping.
The people benefitting from the status quo are only those who make money off trading and borrowing fees (banks, realtors), and the occasional person who left a high price area to a low price area.
California homeowners pay property tax and the rate goes up either with inflation or 2%. I'm guessing you think it should go up with the market value of the home. Thank god it doesn't or I would have had to sell instead of being able to give my kids a stable home for the past 18 years.
> The people benefitting from the status quo are only those who make money off trading and borrowing fees (banks, realtors), and the occasional person who left a high price area to a low price area.
I think that second category should also include retirees who downsize from their empty nest SFH to a cheaper, smaller condo, which is something that I think happens way more than occasionally.
A retiree with an empty nest SFH, looking at inflation and the rising cost of goods, and the future of living on a fixed income, might choose to cash out their equity with a HELC, use that to buy the smaller cheaper condo, and rent out their SFH instead. More work, but more money, and hey, you're retired, what else are you going to do?
These people don't benefit so much from the high interest rates because they sell at high prices and buy at high prices too. Just check how much condos are going for in desirable areas in Florida.
Jokes aside, I would like a list of reasons why people could own homes build out of grunt work 100 years ago but cant today with all the truly marvelous technology.
Besides choking in the red tape stuff like: wood is expensive if you don't plant trees. Long ago people planted the trees (where the house was to be build) when the baby was born.
> Ever-increasing housing prices is bad for people who own homes
On the contrary, ever-increasing housing prices have allowed generations of home-owners to reap immense amounts of tax-free income by borrowing against their real estate. For large parts of the population, having a job is not the way they make a living. Borrowing money is how they make a living, having a job and even a career is just the ticket they need to be able to borrow as much money as possible. In many countries the majority of the population make a living by borrowing, while only a few by working.
The only people who actually make a living by working are the idiots, and that's why they remain broke their entire lives and have nothing to give their children after they pass away. Usually they don't even have children.
This system works as long as there's more money to borrow to keep real estate value going up and more idiots born to work for a living. And when the jig is over, all debts of the real estate owners will be forgiven, while the rest will be sent off to die in some war.
GenAI is going to keep the economy good while interest rates stay high probably forever, meaning that housing availability won't actually drop significantly. We should not expect house prices to go down more than a trickle.
Does anyone else remember when the top upvoted HN comment on the leaked FTX balance sheet article was “I work in the crypto industry and FTX is going to be fine…”? Because I remember that.
I've noticed this anecdotally over the past few weeks in my town. After a couple of years of houses being listed on Thursday, shown over the weekend, in-contract for above asking price the following Tuesday, houses have finally begun to sit on the market for several weeks. And I've seen gasp a couple of asking price reductions. Too soon to tell if this is the beginning of a minor correction or a major bubble burst, but it definitely feels like we've entered a new phase.
I think that was the main reason for higher interest rates -- it makes the monthly payments higher, which pushes down the total home price. But it only works if there is inventory. And inventory only happens when people are in a "forced sell" position, such as needing to relocate for their job (back to office push for example). A lack of inventory typically will also spur on new construction, but even in areas where construction can happen there is the compounding issue of higher timber prices. So with lumber prices coming down, that should relieve the inventory shortage (again, in areas where land isn't too high and new builds are allowed to happen).
The problem I have with this is that regular people that have to mortgage the house don't get any better deal (higher interest == higher monthly payments), but the forced price reduction does give a better deal to anyone who can pay cash (investors for example).
Regarding your last point, wouldn't higher interest make housing a less attractive investment since now you need housing to beat the higher returns from bonds?
The main "forced sell" event is that people die. Yet prices are not coming down even in countries with stable or rapidly declining populations. So shortage it isn't.
I'm trying to wrap my head around WTF is happening in my market. Median price this year is $100,000 above last year, and actual monthly sales are same as Oct 22, but half of Oct 21 (Oct being latest full month reporting). By all available data, there are plenty of buyers still, but inventory overall and DOM continues to climb. The weird part to me is that almost every house on market is overpriced - and not just "I feel the price should be lower" but as in, "OMG that would have been overpriced by $$$$$$$ even at the height of the market 18 months ago!" Like the best explanation I can come up with is that sellers feel like they missed out, so they are jacking up prices to absolutely ridiculous levels either out of hubris or desperation. It's a seriously weird time.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The housing market hasn’t meaningfully changed until I stop seeing every single story 1k sq-ft, 2-3 bedroom 1-2 bath house being listed for over half a goddamn million dollars in a 70k pop city.
I started waiting for the market to crash 10 years ago, and I’m likely going to keep waiting for at least as long, barring a catastrophic economy collapse, which would be even less desirable than the current situation.
This seems temporary, assuming interest rates have topped out. Given the Fed's recent messaging, this seems like the most obvious time in 10+ years to wait out the housing market.
Bring it on. I can't wait to buy a house in the next 6 months. People with money who want desperately out of the renting game don't care at all about 8% interest rates. But the investors and second home buyers sure do. This has been the biggest thing keeping me out of the market since 2020; the time pressure, not the prices. I just refuse to make a massive financial decision on the spot based on a 15 minute open house tour with zero contigencies and huge earnest payments.
This is why nothing is going to "collapse." There are so many people in your position just wanting to buy the second prices start to fall a little. That will prevent any type of serious collapse and it will be more of a minor correction at best.
Will they be able to buy though if they lose their job? Rate cuts usually come with a spike in unemployment, so...
That said I still don't think there will be a collapse unless there is like, worse unemployment than 2008. But - prices could still easily drop 10-15% if this is a more mild recession.
Rate cuts are usually done in response to unemployment spiking. It could take things awhile to recover once they start cutting as that likely means the economy has entered a recession.
That being said - it could be the best time to buy, but not for those that lose their job.
> But the investors and second home buyers sure do.
I'm curious about this, because from what I've heard, a lot of investors are incredibly happy with the higher interest rates as they're paying cash for a lot of homes, which has been squeezing real homeowners out of the market since they are able to shortcut by making offers on houses without requiring financing.
Institutional investors would need to justify to their LPs why whatever they will end up earning beats buying and holding Treasuries instead. The higher rates Treasuries have the tougher it is to make that justification.
Readit News
But since most people aren't forced to sell, the available supply will shrink, which will push up prices eventually, until people can sell at a profit again. The rising rates also make it harder for developers to get loans, and lower prices make development projects riskier, compounding the supply problem.
I'll go a half-step further and say that unless this is a result of broad actions that have made home-building less costly, it will be temporary. Whenever house prices go down, home-builders become less incentivized to build new homes, and so less homes get built, and prices go up again. This will happen unless the price drop was a result of houses becoming easier to build
If there's a glut of people owning houses but not living in them and not successfully renting them, then that does reduce supply, but they're also suffering opportunity cost. If they're willing to throw away money like that I don't think increasing supply would help -- they'd just buy up the new houses as well.
Edit: I think I see where the confusion is. You are right that the literal supply of houses doesn't increase or decrease unless people stop/start renting or new homes are built. But the supply of houses available for purchase depends on whether people want to list them right now or not. Which is influenced by current prices because most people won't sell at a loss unless they have to.
House sellers are generally those who have gone to meet the saints. They move from one place into another yes, but where they go they don't play any part in the housing market – I hope!
The housing supply will increase dramatically in the next decade, not by building but by attrition.
More than 55% of all homes in America are owned by Silent Gens or Boomers[0]. That figure includes non-SFHs, of SFHs I've read they own >70% of (lost my source unfortunately). They are going to start dying of en masse within the next decade. That means A LOT of SFH are going to hit the market, all around the same time.
The share of millenials and genzers who are financially fit to even purchase a home are going to be far less than the amount of people who are dying.
For the non-believers, it's all written in the demographics. Unless we import a shit load of migrants who can also afford expensive real estate, or we print money so that institutions can buy these properties, the prices are going to sink like crazy.
[0]https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/homeownership-rate-...
[0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=j9kH
I don't understand this sentence.
The number of houses that get sold or transferred to living people is of course exactly the same as the number of houses vacated by people who died. It can't be anything else since houses don't evaporate when the owner dies.
1) Not 55% from your article. Youngest boomer is 59. That's about middle of the 55-64. So split the difference, it's 43.8%. Millenials are larger than boomers. Gen X is larger than Silent generation. If your thesis of them not being able to buy when they die off is correct, well, see #2 and #4 below.
2) People that inherit don't have to sell. Many will simply rent as it could be tax advantageous. Or they move in.
3) Construction costs (labor, materials) will inflate minimizing new supply.
4) The Fed has no choice but to bring rates back down and keep printing. National debt is $33T which is crazy but unfunded liabilities are 211T! We're well on our way to paying 1T in annual interest. 65% of spending is mandatory. Debt historically % of GDP is 46.9%. End of 2022 - 97%. [1]. Interest rates cannot remain historically elevated and the only way out of the debt load is to print print print. This helps assets and affordability (debt service) for investors and the genx, millenials to acquire. The US and world got drunk off a cheap dollar.
So I disagree on the macro of your thesis. Certainly some areas will be affected though with boomer/silent passings but that will be due to a demographic change in demand, gen x and younger not desiring those areas for numerous reasons.
I'll be holding assets as inflation continues, and probably rips again in the near future. It will be traditional inflation (actual economy) or inflation in the financial economy (stocks, assets). One or both have to rip from inflation. There's no way out of the debt load.
[1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58888
Likely the powers that be will print money to hand over to institutions to gobble up real estate who will then rent out the properties to the incoming mass migration wave into the US. Most of these new arrivals have a almost zero percent chance of becoming home owners with the current pricing and wage suppression going on.
It seems to me various real estate investment groups have essentially unlimited lines of credit to buy up properties. On the commercial side they seemingly can ride out many of their units being empty for YEARS.
80% of the silent generation is already dead along with 33% of the baby boomers. Between them, around 8,000 people die every day, and that has been going on for quite a while.
When do you expect this to start having an effect on prices?
What else to do with an inherited house than either live in it or sell it?
Obviously the outcome for the family is very different and worth examining, but for the moment I'm considering the broader impact on the housing market.
The historical housing bubble was caused by artificially low interest rates adopted worldwide. Ever-increasing housing prices is bad for people who own homes (higher property taxes, property tax distortions across cities, higher fees when changing houses) and those who don't own any. Low interest rates discourage saving and encourage unproductive speculation and house flipping.
The people benefitting from the status quo are only those who make money off trading and borrowing fees (banks, realtors), and the occasional person who left a high price area to a low price area.
California homeowners insulated from property tax due to prop 13.
I think that second category should also include retirees who downsize from their empty nest SFH to a cheaper, smaller condo, which is something that I think happens way more than occasionally.
End result is, no new SFH on the market.
Jokes aside, I would like a list of reasons why people could own homes build out of grunt work 100 years ago but cant today with all the truly marvelous technology.
Besides choking in the red tape stuff like: wood is expensive if you don't plant trees. Long ago people planted the trees (where the house was to be build) when the baby was born.
On the contrary, ever-increasing housing prices have allowed generations of home-owners to reap immense amounts of tax-free income by borrowing against their real estate. For large parts of the population, having a job is not the way they make a living. Borrowing money is how they make a living, having a job and even a career is just the ticket they need to be able to borrow as much money as possible. In many countries the majority of the population make a living by borrowing, while only a few by working.
The only people who actually make a living by working are the idiots, and that's why they remain broke their entire lives and have nothing to give their children after they pass away. Usually they don't even have children.
This system works as long as there's more money to borrow to keep real estate value going up and more idiots born to work for a living. And when the jig is over, all debts of the real estate owners will be forgiven, while the rest will be sent off to die in some war.
Does anyone else remember when the top upvoted HN comment on the leaked FTX balance sheet article was “I work in the crypto industry and FTX is going to be fine…”? Because I remember that.
The problem I have with this is that regular people that have to mortgage the house don't get any better deal (higher interest == higher monthly payments), but the forced price reduction does give a better deal to anyone who can pay cash (investors for example).
You can't renegotiate your high-principal, low-interest mortgage later. (Well, you can, if rates go up, but why would you want to?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/36-1st-St-Mc-Gill-NV-8931...
Still not building enough, and the market always cools in winter.
Big Tech isn’t killing the internet. All the Ferengi that went into engagement farming are with their clickbait.
The housing market hasn’t meaningfully changed until I stop seeing every single story 1k sq-ft, 2-3 bedroom 1-2 bath house being listed for over half a goddamn million dollars in a 70k pop city.
I started waiting for the market to crash 10 years ago, and I’m likely going to keep waiting for at least as long, barring a catastrophic economy collapse, which would be even less desirable than the current situation.
Dead Comment
That said I still don't think there will be a collapse unless there is like, worse unemployment than 2008. But - prices could still easily drop 10-15% if this is a more mild recession.
That being said - it could be the best time to buy, but not for those that lose their job.
I'm curious about this, because from what I've heard, a lot of investors are incredibly happy with the higher interest rates as they're paying cash for a lot of homes, which has been squeezing real homeowners out of the market since they are able to shortcut by making offers on houses without requiring financing.
Deleted Comment