by Lawrence Yun, NAR Chief Economist Copyright National Association of REALTORS®, Reprinted from REALTOR.org with permission

Though the national headlines have been pounding out the news of a housing market meltdown, implosion, and collapse, all markets are not equal. In NAR’s latest metro price survey, roughly half of the country experienced a price increase. Upstate New York is one example. While folks in the area have been kicking through the snow, home prices in the final quarter of 2007 rose 9% in Buffalo, 8% in Rochester, and a whopping 15% in Binghamton. The Texas market has been also doing its two-step dance with Corpus Christi, Austin, and San Antonio experiencing price gains of 6%, 6%, 8%, respectively. Not to be outdone, Amarillo home prices soared 11% higher.

And yes, there were some areas that weren’t dancing. Price declines are occurring no doubt, and quite notably in some coastal states and in markets with a high prevalence of subprime loans. Prices fell 13% in Cape Coral, 14% in Detroit, and 19% in Sacramento.

Significant Variations Across Markets
What the data clearly illuminates is that there are significant variations across markets. As real estate practitioners know very well, there are further measurable differences across neighborhoods within a metro market. No doubt there are some people under great financial stress. Subprime products that should never have entered the marketplace have wreaked havoc on many communities around the country. Homeowners unable to meet payments are losing their homes and falling home values have cut the equity of those homeowners who make their mortgage payments on time. Investors taking a walk may not feel the same financial squeeze but they are getting hit on credit scores – that is, many investors using low documentation loans bought multiple properties and are now simply walking away from those properties in declining markets. The calculus was simple – heads I win and tails I don’t lose. Prices rise, get the profit. Prices decline, then walk away – and let the lenders take the loss.

As I travel around the country speaking with many REALTORS®, I hear their side of the state of housing. Now, anecdotal information should always be read with caution. However, what does it mean when several REALTORS® in Columbus, Ohio say they have never seen such an upturn in foot traffic in open houses after the New Year? One of them said he had over 30 visitors in January, when just a few months earlier he had about only one or two onlookers. A similar buzz was in evidence during my recent visits to Maryland, Virginia, and Arizona. What was lacking from the buzz was the actual eagerness to sign contracts. Buyers were looking — but unwilling to commit. In other words, weakened confidence is evidently holding back buyers.

All markets are unequal in other ways. Consider a Microsoft engineer in Seattle with a great salary and a top-notch credit score. A good-sized home in an upper-middle class neighborhood is priced at about $800,000. A jumbo loan is required. But a jumbo loan in the current environment is very expensive. Fortunately, relief is on the way. Congress and the White House have realized the unequal treatment of loans to some consumers and have now decided to raise the loan limits on FHA and GSE loans (albeit temporarily). As a result, by late spring, home sales on higher-priced homes will pick up.
Permalink to this topic

Roughly half of metropolitan areas continued to show rising home prices in the fourth quarter of 2007, according to the latest quarterly survey by the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®.

In the fourth quarter, 73 out of 150 metropolitan statistical areas show increases in median existing single-family home prices from a year earlier, including 11 areas with double-digit annual gains and another 12 metros showing increases of 6 percent or more; 77 had price declines including 16 with double-digit drops.

“The continuing crunch in the jumbo loan market that began in August has disproportionately reduced the number of transactions in higher price ranges,” says Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist. “For buyers who need loans of more than $417,000, mortgage interest rates have been running more than a percentage point higher, and that has been having an obvious impact. Higher ratios of sales for more moderately priced homes are naturally dampening the national median price as well as the data for some of the more expensive markets.”

NAR’s track of metro area single-family home prices is the largest published series of metropolitan home prices, with data available back to 1979. The metro home price series treats all homes equally, without placing higher weights on more expensive homes as in other home price series.

The disruption in higher priced sales continues to drag down the aggregate national median existing single-family home price, which was $206,200 in the fourth quarter, down 5.8 percent from the fourth quarter of 2006 when the median price was $219,000. The national median normally is a typical market price, where half of the homes sold for more and half sold for less.

NAR President Richard Gaylord says he’s encouraged with plans to increase conventional loan limits.

“Higher limits for FHA loans, which go into effect March 14, will be a big help to first-time buyers in high-cost markets. Higher limits for conventional loans purchased by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will take a bit longer – when they become available, high-income, creditworthy borrowers in high-cost areas will have access to affordable and safer financing, and that will help unleash pent-up demand,” he says.

“With the market in a state of flux, it’s especially important for consumers to stay abreast of widely varying and changing market conditions,” Gaylord adds. He says consumers are recommended to take a traditional long-term view, which means taking the time to thoughtfully research the market.

More Housing Stats

Despite the annual decline in the fourth quarter median home price, the typical seller who purchased their home six years ago still saw a very healthy gain. The median increase in value for sellers who purchased that home in the fourth quarter of 2001 is 31.2 percent, and the median home equity accumulation is $49,000.

In the fourth quarter, the largest single-family home price increase was the Cumberland area of Maryland and West Virginia, where the median price of $116,600 rose 19 percent from a year ago. Next was Yakima, Wash., at $170,600, up 18.0 percent from the fourth quarter of 2006, followed by the Binghamton, N.Y., area, where the fourth quarter median price increased 14.8 percent to $110,000.

“The healthiest housing markets today generally are moderately priced and are experiencing job growth and often population growth, which in turn is supporting strong price growth,” Yun says. “Most of the weakest markets have either experienced both job and population losses, or they are experiencing corrections following a prolonged period of rapid price growth.”

Median fourth-quarter metro area single-family home prices ranged from a very affordable $72,600 in the Youngstown-Warren-Boardman area of Ohio and Pennsylvania, to nearly 12 times that amount in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara area of California, where the median price was $845,300. The second most expensive area was San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, at $777,300, followed by the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine area (Orange County, Calif.), at $657,400.

Other affordable markets include the Saginaw-Saginaw Township North area of Michigan, with a fourth-quarter median price of $74,900, and Decatur, Ill., at $75,000.

In the condo sector, metro area condominium and cooperative prices – covering changes in 59 metro areas – show the national median existing-condo price was $221,100 in the fourth quarter, essentially unchanged from $221,200 in the fourth quarter of 2006. Thirty-three metros showed annual increases in the median condo price, including four areas with double-digit gains; 26 areas had price declines including four with double-digit drops.

The strongest condo price increases were in Bismarck, N.D., where the fourth quarter price of $125,000 rose 20.8 percent from a year earlier, followed by the New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner area of Louisiana, at $173,300, up 17.8 percent, and Knoxville, Tenn., where the median condo price of $160,800 rose 10.6 percent from the fourth quarter of 2006.

Metro area median existing-condo prices in the fourth quarter ranged from $109,900 in Wichita, Kan., to $595,700 in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont area. The second most expensive condo market reported was Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, at $363,100, followed by the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos area at $327,000.

Other affordable condo markets include both Indianapolis and Greensboro-High Point, N.C., at $116,700 in the fourth quarter, and the Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor area of Ohio at $120,000.

Total state existing-home sales, including single-family and condo, were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.96 million units in the fourth quarter, down 8.5 percent from 5.42 million in the third quarter, and are 20.9 percent below a 6.26 million-unit pace in the fourth quarter of 2006.

“With prior reports of national home sales declines, it is not surprising to see 14 states with declines in excess of 20 percent from a year ago,” Yun says.

— REALTOR Magazine Online

From Blanche Evans Realty Times 2008.

It’s high time we told buyers (and sellers, for that matter) the truth about whether a home is a good investment.

Despite what Wall Street wants you to believe, owning a home isn’t the same kind of investment as stocks or bonds. What you get is a USE asset that depreciates over time while it grows in market value. All you have to do is keep the home in good repair to maximize your investment.

Here are five reasons why you get more for your money with a house than the stock market:

1. Leverage. With stocks, you put in all your money for a little piece of a company. With a house, you put in a little money to get the entire house.

2. Tax benefits. Uncle Sam knows that owning a home is a pain in the neck; that’s why you get tax incentives. These are basically government bribes to get you to buy.

Think about it, with what other investment can you put in 5 percent of the cost of the asset, reap all the appreciation, and pay no capital gains? That’s right: live in your home for at least two years, and you don’t have to pay capital gains tax on up to $250,000 in appreciation if you’re single and a combined $500,000 if you’re a married couple.

And that’s not all — consider the benefits of fixed-rate mortgages, property tax write-offs, interest rate deductions, and depreciation. Is this a great country or what?

3. Control. When you buy stocks, you’re paying some CEO 500 times the average worker’s salary for company performance that most other workers would lose their job over. With a home, you have control — what you buy, how much you pay, and where you live. You can improve the value with repairs and updates. Try comparing that to getting heard at the next shareholders’ meeting!

4. Lifestyle. Do you want to look at a concrete jungle or your children playing in your own back yard? With a home, you’re purchasing a vantage point for yourself and your family. The neighborhood you want to be in, and the size and style of a home that fits your needs.

5. Value. Unlike some stocks, your house will seldom become worthless. Barring a catastrophe, your home will retain a major portion of its value, even in the worst of times. So don’t freak out about slight fluctuations in the value of your home in any given year. You’ll make it up. Housing has lost value only one year out of the last 35. It’s more normal to beat inflation by 1 percent to 2 percent.

Take Stock in This
So let’s add a little perspective here. You lost a greater percentage on the stock market this past year than if you owned a house. You lost more on your SUV. And you sure lost more on your iPhone.

And keep this in mind: When it rains, which would you rather have over your head — a roof or a stock certificate?

(c) Copyright 2008 Realty Times. Reprinted with permission.

Newly listed properties and properties back on the market…..1,911*

Expired listings, price adjustments, and removed listings…..3,985*

Closed sales, under contract firm and contingent…..1,821*

Current properties for sale…..30,159*

*Numbers obtained through the Mid America Regional Information Systems MLS and represent activity for the past 7 days.

This is a well written article explaining why the news is bad and the market is good.  Interestingly the market continues at a pace only slightly off it’s best ever while some analysts would have us believe market conditions are extremely bad. 

Economy in Focus

BY ROBERT FREEDMAN

Beneath Market Punditry, Underlying Strength

With some 5 percent of subprime mortgage borrowers facing trouble and global investors wondering if prime mortgages remain a smart investment, these are indeed challenging times for real estate.

In one of the most unsettling headlines of all, Robert Shiller of Yale University and one of the developers of the widely tracked S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, has said mortgage troubles are only beginning and that some home prices could fall 50 percent in the next few years.

Dire predictions like that do more than grab the attention of the media; they can shake consumer confidence and help make such predictions self-fulfilling as home buyers stay on the sidelines, pressuring sellers to lower prices—in effect fueling a downward spiral.

But the prognosis is considerably different than the scare scenario forecasters would have us believe, says Lawrence Yun, NAR vice president of research. In this interview with REALTOR® Magazine, Yun puts the state of the economy into perspective, explaining just how contained the subprime problem is and why the trend lines are already contradicting many of the predictions of woe.

REALTOR® Magazine: No doubt the general media tend to play up negative market news like continuing soft home sales. Is there truth in these market concerns?

Yun: It’s all a matter of perspective. Home sales do continue to be soft. We’re predicting existing-home sales to be down 7 percent year-over-year at the end of 2007, but that’s coming off a five-year boom. We’re forecasting a sales level near what we had in 2002, a very good year, and a level that’s far closer to normal than what we’ve been seeing over the past four years.

At the same time, price appreciation is holding up better than media reports would have us believe. In data we collected this fall, two-thirds of markets reported positive price growth in the third quarter, up from half of all markets in the second quarter. In markets where prices continue to be down, the declines are minimal, 1 percent to 2 percent. Only a very few markets are seeing declines higher than 5 percent.

RM: Why the dramatically different picture than what some analysts are seeing?

Yun: In some ways we’re tracking different things. We use MLS data, so our figures are as timely as possible and are more representative of markets. Shiller uses county records and mortgage data from the secondary market. These sources lag further than ours and they capture a disproportionate percentage of higher-priced homes.
Permalink to this topic