Atlantic Business Channel

« Let Tim Geithner Be Beautiful | Main | Apple and Google 'Probe Launched' »

May 5 2009, 8:53 am

Has the Housing Market Hit Bottom?

Sacramento County, California, drank more housing bubble kool-aid than almost anywhere else in the country, and experienced the correspondingly large drop in home prices, spike in foreclosures, and rise in backlog of unsold houses. But now the New York Times says home sales are on the rise, and has the fancy-looking graph to prove it: sacramento home prices.png

Comments (5)

Steve Koch

The big volume is caused by the low prices. Hitting bottom will vary from market to market (i.e. city to city). Sacramento is the state capital of California so it is buffered somewhat from the recession buffeting California (i.e. just like DC is doing OK). This means that Sacramento might recover quicker than some other California cities.

Californians have been trained to think houses should cost $500,000. Now that cheap foreclosures in Sacramento are more like $150,000, people have decided they have to be bargains. And they still think as soon as the economy recovers, prices will zoom again.

Still addicted to housing-as-investment in other words. In the words of Homer Simpson, "I haven't learned a thing."

We'll see.

Conor,

I am out in California, although in Orange County (ground zero for the sub prime industry) rather than Sacramento.

In terms of volume (number of houses sold) we may be near a bottom, although I am skeptical. The reason I am skeptical is that I think that we are no where near a bottom on price.

I think that there are three factors to look at in declaring a bottom for price (call it cdm's Corollary for the Housing Price Bottom, if you will):

1) The median home price for any designated neighborhood needs to be at 3 x median household income for the same neighborhood (this is a measure of basic affordability).

2) "Distressed" homes need to make up less than 10% of inventory (economists who studied the last big drop in California (mid 90's) seem to think that distressed inventory above ten percent is destabilizing to prices).

3) Unemployment needs to be below 7% (Unemployment has a destabilizing effect on both supply and demand). Why 7%? It is a number that just feels about right.

I do not think we will have a bottom until we see all three in concert.

Right now, I think that we are seeing a little bit of a false bottom, due in part to an anomaly in foreclosure numbers. Late last year, California had established a new waiting period that was intended to ensure that servicers took the time to contact borrowers that were in default. This led to a drastic drop in the number of NOD's (notice of defaults - the first step in foreclosure), and a corresponding drop in subsequent NTS and TS (Notice of Trustee Sale and Trustee Sale - the auction on the courthouse steps - respectively). However, NOD's have not only gone up as the servicers have processed through the new waiting period, they have set a new record! (http://www.dqnews.com/Articles/2009/News/California/CA-Foreclosures/RRFor090422.aspx)

My guess is that we will see in California and most other hard hit areas an over-correction down through and below the affordability factor that I stated, as the foreclosures and the unemployment issues will keep pushing prices lower. Of course, there are some smaller variables at play as well (baby boomers and their predicted future preference for smaller housing, interest rates, etc.), but I do not think these factors will be be determining like the other three will be.

cdm (Replying to: cdm)

I have also posted on this at the IHB forum ( http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/forums/viewthread/5122/ ), which is a forum that discusses the housing situation, with an emphasis on Orange County.

cdm (Replying to: cdm)

I also put this on my own blog here: http://cdmpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/housing-bottom.html

Dissenters may feel free to light me up there as well (but please keep it clean!).