Tag Archives: housing market

“Wall Street landlords” don’t own a big percentage of residential properties though percentages are higher in some clusters

Posted on by

An analysis of “Wall Street landlords,” big firms buying up residential properties, suggests they do not own a large percentage of residences overall but their property does tend to be in some clusters:

Photo by Ivan Samkov on Pexels.com

Nationally, Wall Street landlords that have more than 1,000 units in their portfolios own just 1% of all of America’s family homes and 4% of all of the houses that are rented out. In most areas, their presence is still too small to have much effect on local housing dynamics. If current trends continue, though, their share of the market for single-family rentals could increase 10-fold by the end of the decade, MetLife Investment Management estimates. 

There are a handful of U.S. neighborhoods where investors are densely clustered, particularly in Georgia, North Carolina, Florida and Texas. They have bought more than 1,000 homes in 53 zip codes, putting their ownership of the local housing stock anywhere from 4% to 12%, according to data from real-estate analytics firm Parcl Labs. The data includes some houses temporarily owned by builders, as well as foreclosed properties on banks’ books, but most are held by institutional landlords. 

Wall Street housing investors tend to herd into the same neighborhoods because their algorithms spot the same opportunities. They screen the country for cities and towns with population growth and job openings—places where there is likely to be competition for homes. They prefer to own three-bedroom, suburban properties that are around 1,500 square feet in size and offer a convenient commute downtown. Young parents like these kinds of homes, and landlords like to rent to families because they become sticky tenants once their children enroll in local schools.  

Big landlords are also able to sift through reams of data to spot bargains. The 53 zip codes where they are most densely clustered offer cheap housing. The median single-family home price in these areas is $345,400, based on Redfin data—around a fifth below the national level. Rents, however, are only 3% below the national median. 

It sounds like they have bought more in places where there are deals and money to be made relatively quickly. If unchecked, would they then uncover more places that offer deals and just keep going until there are no deals left?

Or might conditions and the approach of landlords change in the future. Some communities might restrict who can purchase residences. The landlords might be willing to hold on to properties for longer, particularly if higher rents are sustainable. Or the broader housing market twists and turns (currently few sales) might affect how landlords and communities act.

At the moment, I am most intrigued by the numbers: 1% of single-family homes, 4% of rented homes. Are these large enough percentages to fundamentally alter housing? I could see how there would be effects in clusters of owned properties and these clusters could introduce spillover effects to nearby locations or the broader market.

Do presidential elections affect the housing market?

Posted on by

With the upcoming November elections, some in the housing market are waiting to see what happens:

Photo by Guilherme Rossi on Pexels.com

Fall is traditionally a slower time for home sales, but this year, buyers seem extra wary. Uncertainty over the presidential election, questions over the direction of the U.S. economy, and confusion about new rules for home-buying brought on by the National Association of Realtors legal settlement have some buyers hitting the brakes on what could potentially be the biggest purchase they will ever make. Not to mention the possibility of a Federal Reserve interest-rate cut on the horizon.

Is the lack of activity really about the elections? A few other data points:

Goshorn explained that he often hears people say they “just want to see how the election goes” and are reluctant because they “don’t know what’s going to happen.” But he noted that evidence points to election cycles having little effect on the housing market. “Clearly, the numbers don’t lie: Nine out of 11 election cycles, existing-home sales have gone up. Seven out of 8 times, median home prices have gone up,” he said.

Some buyers say they’ll only buy a home “if their candidate wins,” Matthew Purdy, a Colorado-based real-estate agent, said in a Redfin blog post. “Others are waiting because they feel the economy and housing market are shaky, and hope it will improve after the election.”

Though presidents have little direct control over home prices, housing affordability is the issue that will influence younger voters’ candidate choice the most in the 2024 presidential election, according to a recent survey…

Research is mixed on whether consumers actually pull back on spending money on big-ticket items in the leadup to a presidential election…

Even though some buyers have expressed hesitation to purchase homes due to the political climate, the data doesn’t back up the anecdotes, a study by housing consultancy group John Burns Research & Consulting found.

It sounds like there is little effect when considering historical patterns and studies.

But it is an interesting talking point amid other pressures in the housing market. Lots of people might want market conditions to be different. And there is a chance for candidates to respond to the concerns people have.

I know this is too much to ask but what if there was an upcoming debate or set of back and forths between the candidates regarding housing. The article briefly mentions that the candidates have made some statement about improvements for the housing market. Can we get more details and go beyond soundbites that attempt to appeal to parts of the electorate? How much do their plans differ? Where do they see room for improvement or have a vision for sustainable change? Because housing and where people can live is so important for so many other outcomes, a focused discussion or debate about housing could touch on all sorts of important topics.

Can you have “high-end, custom homes” that are within a few feet of the neighbors?

Posted on by

A new proposed subdivision in one Chicago suburb will have “custom, high-end homes.” But the image provided suggests these homes will be right next to their neighbors. Do these things go together?

https://www.dailyherald.com/20240903/news/custom-home-developer-asks-lombard-to-annex-site/

A description of “high-end” and “custom” plus looking at the rendering suggests these will be pricey homes. To have this square footage with a garage in a new single-family home build in an older suburb will cost buyers a good amount.

But the homes are so close to each other! Americans like single-family homes in the suburbs but they also like a little space. They like a lawn and an approximation of nature. They like some privacy and an ability to do what they want with their property.

The demand will be there for these homes, yards or not. Housing supply is limited. Some buyers want to pay for less yard space. The new spacious interior with features will outweigh other downsides. If plenty of Americans prefer private interior spaces, these homes will offer that. Like many in the suburbs, people can drive into their garage, close the door, and do their thing inside with little interaction with neighbors or the community.

I also imagine there are a good number of people in the United States who would look at the drawing above and not have any interest due to the lack of space around each house. These are denser suburban homes that do not appeal to everyone.

Now we have the Home Buyer Index

Posted on by

NBC, with the help of experts, developed a new index to summarize the ease or difficulty of buying a home in many counties in the United States. It produces a number between 0 (easy to buy) and 100 (hard to buy) and consists of four factors:

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com
  • Cost: How much a home costs relative to incomes and inflation — as well as how related expenses, such as insurance costs, are changing. 
  • Competition: How many people are vying for a home — and how aggressive the demand is. This is measured through observations including the percentage of homes sold above list price and the number that went under contract within two weeks of being listed. 
  • Scarcity: The number of homes that are on the market — and how many more are expected to enter the market in the coming month.
  • Economic instability: Market volatility, unemployment and interest rates — reflecting the broader climate in which home shoppers are weighing their decisions. 

The value of an index is that it attempts to incorporate a lot of data into a single number. Given the current real estate market in many places, having this single number could help express what home buyers can expect or are experiencing.

At the same time, this seems like the product of a particular moment. Home buyers perceive a tighter market than they might like. This index confirms it. The index goes back to 2012 with the data available: it was quite a bit lower ten years ago in 2014 and it really ticked up in late 2021.

Two additional questions:

  1. How many potential home buyers would act differently based on this index? Will this encourage people to not try so hard to purchase a home?
  2. Does this score mean it is a great time to be a home seller? Is the home seller index roughly the inverse of the index for home buyers?

What older adults owe younger adults regarding housing: nothing, something, or everything?

Posted on by

Older adult Americans are holding on to their big houses longer. Should they do this? Here are three options in the American context for how older adults could approach housing in terms of what they might owe younger adults regarding housing.

Photo by Luis Yanez on Pexels.com
  1. They owe younger adults nothing. Older adults worked hard to acquire and maintain their properties. They are holding on to them as valuable assets that can continue to appreciate in value. If they can stay in the homes (considering finances and health), why shouldn’t they stay in the homes they selected as long as they can?
  2. They owe younger adults something. Older adults can balance what they would like as they age – staying in their homes, cashing out the value of those properties – with also helping younger adults who desire housing. This might look different for a variety of households and locations.
  3. They owe younger adults everything. Older adults should actively work to pass along their homes and properties (and their associated wealth and opportunities) to younger people. They should make way for future generations who could benefit from the housing they benefited them. They are passing along a housing legacy that can enrich their children and grandchildren. They have an obligation to insure housing is readily available for those who come after them.

This is a rough approximation of options available within the United States. Numerous articles in recent years highlight this dynamic of generational shifts in housing options and preferences. The housing situation in the United States is unique – emphasizing single-family homes, limited supply, high mortgage interest rates, a big Baby Boomer generation, decades-long housing value increases, and more – and Americans tend to think that housing is a market, not a human right.

Fast forward ten or twenty years down the road: I would guess Americans will follow some middle option above. Some older adults will want to or have to pass along housing, others will hold onto it as long as possible. What might be most interesting is if some of those big houses stop rising in value so much or even lose value – how much might this change the dynamics in housing turnover?

Are falling housing and rent prices good or bad for a community?

Posted on by

The cost of housing in Austin, Texas has recently fallen. Is this good or bad in the long run for the city? Some details on the falling prices:

Photo by Jeswin Thomas on Pexels.com

Home prices and apartment rents in Austin, Texas, have fallen more than anywhere else in the country, after a period of overbuilding and a slowdown in job and population growth. 

That marks a sharp reversal from previous years when Austin’s real-estate market was sizzling. The city attracted waves of remote workers on six-figure tech salaries. Others arrived after companies such as Tesla and Oracle moved offices there, taking advantage of lower taxes and less business regulation. Austin’s economy grew at nearly double the national rate, and it became the country’s 10th-largest city. 

Now, it is contending with a glut of luxury apartment buildings. Landlords are offering weeks of free rent and other concessions to fill empty units. More single-family homes are selling at a loss. Empty office space is also piling up downtown, and hundreds of Google employees who were meant to occupy an entire 35-story office tower built almost two years ago still have no move-in date. 

On one hand, falling prices are good news for residents. Housing is more affordable. People have more options. Getting in to better housing can mean better day-to-day experiences plus the opportunity to develop wealth.

On the other hand, falling prices mean less demand for development. This could mean slower population growth. Status is tied to population and interest actors have in snatching up properties. Tax revenues will be lower than they could be if property values do not shoot up.

Many American communities experience this tension. Property owners want values to go up. They do not necessarily want to pay higher taxes with these rising values but they will be happy when they sell the properties. More people want housing at reasonable prices. But, relatively few people want to live in places known for low housing values or people may not want to live in places where property values do not go up.

Some older buyers with money doing just fine in the housing market

Posted on by

With money from having owned a home before, some older participants in the real estate market can get what they want:

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

The Zinnick’s aren’t alone: Older buyers are prevailing in America’s hot housing market. This year, the median age for a repeat buyer – someone who has bought a home before – was 58, according to data released Monday by the National Association of Realtors. That’s down just a smidgen from last year’s record of 59, but it’s up significantly from 36 years old in 1981, when NAR began conducting its survey.

Lately, grandparents have been edging out younger buyers who are struggling to get into the market for the first time. Nowadays, first-time buyers make up 32 percent of the market, well below an average of 38 percent since 1981, according to NAR. They’re also more likely to be in their mid-30s today, in contrast to their late 20s in the early 1980s…

There are many reasons. For starters, older buyers are also likely to be selling a house, which provides them fresh cash. Indeed, the typical home seller was 60 years old in 2023, according to NAR, the same as last year.

And with so few homes available, sellers often go with the potential buyer making the most attractive offer – be it a large down payment, stellar credit or all cash. There, too, older buyers have a leg up…

That often leaves seniors and aspiring first-time buyers competing for similar types of homes – just a couple of bedrooms, not too much upkeep. Usually, there’s a clear winner.

If you have the wealth from owning a home, you can then put that wealth into something else – if you so choose. So, if housing values have tripled to quintupled, there is plenty of resources to apply to a new home. The home gets turned into a new home (and perhaps leftover cash). One advantage begets another, what some have called The Matthew Effect.

In theory, this is how Americans expect homeownership to work: you purchase a home, you get to live in the home, and then at some point you cash out because the home offers a strong return on investment. But, as this story notes, this is not a good story for everyone. Others who might be competing in the housing market may not have the same resources. Or, not mentioned are seniors who have not owned homes or owned properties that did not appreciate much.

Is this just a blip in the grand scheme of things because of unique conditions in the housing market? Or, is this a long-term change where those who bought homes in the past now reap certain rewards? The outcome of this could help influence the life outcomes of a lot of Americans in the coming years.

The reasons behind a low housing inventory

Posted on by

Why are there few homes to purchase in the United States? Here are several reasons:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

One reason inventory is so low nationally is that many homeowners were able to lock in record low interest rates in 2020 and 2021. Mortgage rates have skyrocketed since then—the rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage reached 6.7% on March 9, nearly double that of a year ago, according to Freddie Mac. That means that homeowners who bought or refinanced with low interest rates are reluctant to sell their homes and buy another with a mortgage with a much higher interest rate.

The low inventory makes house hunting an even more painful and emotionally charged process than usual, because buyers are finding that there just aren’t that many options. They have to choose between paying a high price for the inventory that is available, or waiting—potentially for a long time.

There are factors at play that make some markets especially brutal. In January, according to Redfin, the places out of the top 100 most-populated metro areas in the country with the lowest inventory were Rochester, N.Y. (1.2 months’ supply); Buffalo, N.Y. (1.4 months’); and Allentown, Penn. (1.5 months’). Rounding out the top ten were Grand Rapids, Mich.; Worcester, Mass.; Greensboro, N.C.; Hartford; Boston; and Montgomery County, Penn…

One other reason that there’s low inventory? The influx of investors who have bought properties, including single-family homes, to rent. Investors bought 24% of all single-family homes in 2021, up from around 15-16% each year going back to 2012, according to a Pew Stateline analysis.

Add to this that many places in the United States are short units of affordable housing.

I have not seen many hints that this is a short-term problem or one that will be addressed soon. The mortgage rate issue will take time to see through. The housing crunch in particular markets may require hyperlocal policies as well as changing national conditions. Investors will continue to act in the market. The construction that is taking place is often aimed at higher ends of the market.

What I am still surprised at: how come no national politician is making this a centerpiece of a campaign? Imagine a politician promoting homeownership opportunities, new housing starts, seeking ways to boost construction, and wanting to help people achieve the American Dream. This could appeal to both sides of the aisle. This would not necessarily require major changes to national policy beyond a consistent message, helpful incentives, and a desire to help address the foundational issue of housing that many face.

The housing market giveth, the housing market taketh away

Posted on by

Where are housing prices dropping the fastest in the United States? They tend to be places where prices were zooming up not long ago:

Photo by Karolina Grabowska on Pexels.com

Top 10 cities where housing markets are cooling the fastest in 2022

  1. Seattle, WA
  2. Las Vegas, NV
  3. San Jose, CA
  4. San Diego, CA
  5. Sacramento, CA and Denver, CO (tie)
  6. —
  7. Phoenix, AZ
  8. Oakland, CA
  9. North Port, FL
  10. Tacoma, WA

This raises multiple questions:

  1. While housing values are going down, how long before they stabilize and head back up? After all, these are places with higher demand and rising prices over time. At least, that is what a lot of homeowners are planning on.
  2. How are residents of these places feeling? American property owners like it when property values are going up, even if they are not ready to sell. When prices go down, I assume they are not feeling as good. (This could be true even if housing values today are higher than they were not long ago; the immediate feeling of loss is strong.)
  3. Is a local market with higher highs and lower lows in housing prices one where more growth is happening? Looking at the list above, it would appear these are fairly popular places with a steady demand for housing. The alternative to the yo-yoing in the housing market is a market where prices do not rise much or lose much. Such markets also exist in the United States, but they are less desirable.

Decline in luxury home sales – but few have to buy or sell

Posted on by

Reading this overview of the decline of sales in the luxury housing market, a few quotes stood out to me about a particular aspect of this segment of housing:

Photo by Chris Goodwin on Pexels.com

As for purchasing real estate in all cash, Treasurys seem like a better bet than real estate right now, Ms. Fairweather said. “No investor wants to put their money into an asset that is going down in value,” she said.

Mr. Chan said he believes the slowdown in activity is more severe in the luxury market because high-end homeowners have a greater degree of discretion about when to sell and at what price. Often, sellers face no financial pressure to move, he said; they can just wait it out…

Many sellers, however, haven’t adjusted to the new realities of the market, Mr. Chan said. Some of his buyers have made lowball offers on homes, only to be met with significant resistance. “It’s a stalemate,” he said. “Sellers are living in the past, the buyers are living in the future.”…

One of her listings, a $14.95 million oceanfront mansion in Carlsbad, Calif., has been on the market since June. While the seller received one verbal offer, a sale never materialized. Still, she said, her client is wealthy and isn’t desperate to sell. “They don’t have to ever sell—they can carry these properties in perpetuity,” she said.

If housing has become more of an investment among all Americans, this segment of the market might exemplify this the most. Housing is a commodity that needs to be at the right price to buy or sell. Even as these homes signify status and a certain lifestyle, they are also a commodity with perceptions about what is a “good price.” When wealthy people have money – the economy is good, corporate profits are up, interest rates are relatively low – they want to purchase expensive and exclusive properties. When economic times are not as good – interest rates are higher, there is more uncertainty – luxury housing might be just that: a luxury.

If everyone is trying to get ahead with the best deal, how many people end up profiting compared to the other actors in this market? There are other motivations for moving beyond making money or getting a good return on investment; this helps guarantee there is some real estate activity in more troubled economic times.