Back in the still-uncertain days of September 09, every market pundit had his or her own letter for what shape the recovery would take. I blogged about Ben Bernanke’s “U,” Liz Ann Sonders‘ “V,” and Nouriel Roubini’s “W” here. Though one could argue the jury is still out, I think it’s fair to say that Liz Ann won round one.  The recovery is looking and feeling like a “V”  — and in fact is falling pretty much within historical patterns. (Full disclosure — I had my money on Nouriel.)

I recently spent 20 minutes listening to her most recent webcast, and it all sounds pretty seensible.  What I like about Sonders in particular is that she’s basically a contrarian. So many people are betting against the stock market’s phenomenal rise right now — and in favor of bonds — that she thinks that the bears are refusing to accept the fact that a solid recovery is in place.  I like the way she puts it in a related article:

Skeptics are often the loudest folks in the room, and the bear case is often the more “intellectual” case, but the market has a tendency to reward the minority view, not the majority view.

What’s all this got to do with San Francisco residential real estate?  One of her points touches on a theme that I’ve sounded here recently. As everyone knows, interest rates are likely to rise as the economy starts to strengthen and the Fed starts turning off the easy credit spigot.   Sonders is not predicting the stratospheric rates that occurred in the early 1980’s.  Nevertheless, it doesn’t take much of an increase in rates to have a significant impact 0n the amount of house you can buy.

Say you’re thinking about borrowing $700,000 on a 30 year fixed rate loan at the current rate of 5.25%.  Your payment would be just under $3,900 a month.  Now say that interest rates increase by just half a percent to 5.75%.  Your monthly payment would increase to just under $4,100 a month.  Maybe a difference of $200 a month doesn’t sound like that much:  a couple of fancy restaurant dinners would would cost the same.

But look at it this way.  Say that the the maximum you’ve decided — or the bank’s decided — you can afford to pay each month on your mortgage is $3,900 a month.  Now that half percent increase in rates means that the maximum loan you can qualify for is around $662,000.  That’s a loss of $38,000 in the amount you can borrow and the amount of house you can buy.

It’s also a heck of a lot of fancy dinners.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Investors Should Give the Recovery Some Respect — but Watch for Rising Rates (dailyfinance.com)

Image via Wikipedia

As if one new home buyer tax credit weren’t enough, the State of California recently re-enacted and extended the scope of its own version, originally passed in 2009.   As a result, some California buyers can take advantage of both — but only if all the stars align, and only for a short period of time.

The California Association of Realtors has published a useful chart that compares the two tax credits and I’ve reproduced it below (click to enlarge).

The rules are complicated, (see here for the Franchise Tax Board explanation) but here are a few key takeaways:

• To take advantage of both credits, you’ll need to be in escrow no later than April 20, 2010 and close escrow no later than June 30, 1010 — these time periods are driven by the federal tax credit.
• Even if you’re eligible for the full $10,000 California tax credit, you only get to claim a third of it per year for the next three years.
• Individual filers with adjusted gross income over $125,000 ($225,000 for joint filers) get a reduced deduction under the federal program.  There’s no federal credit at all for filers with adjusted gross income over $145,000 ($245,000 for joint filers).

If you figure SF median home prices at around $750,000, and assuming you could even qualify for a 75% loan and yet be under the maximum income limit, you’d be “saving” around 2.4% on your purchase if you qualified for every penny of both tax credits — less, since the California credit is spread over three years.  18 big ones isn’t small change in anybody’s language, but it surely shouldn’t be enough to drive anyone’s home-buying decision.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Time Is Running Out For Buyers To Reserve Up To $18,000 In Tax Credits At Blossom Grove At The Foothills In Carlsbad (prweb.com)

First, a look back (in anger?) at the make-up of Noe Valley sales in 2009.

Note that there were more than twice as many condos sold as TICs, and more homes sold than condos and TICs put together. (What’s a TIC?  — Check out my series of posts on Tenancy-In-Common Interests, starting here.)

Also, that absurdly long DOM for TICs was distorted by 3 TICs at 201 Hoffman that took 410 days to sell.  Still, without those sales, DOM for TICs (tired of the acronyms yet?) was still 99 days.  And I’d be somewhat skeptical of the whopping difference in price between TICs and condos as well:  TICs sales often don’t have a price per square foot listed, so there are very few data points — and there are very few sales to begin with.

Here’s how condos and TICs have been doing as a combined group, versus their all-time highs.

That precipitous plunge (actually a huge increase since the scale is reversed) in DOM at the end of 2009 was also due to the lingering effects of 201 Hoffman.

For a shorter term view, prices through February 2010 are up 11% from January 2009 and are up a whopping 31% from the trough of June 2009.  Since I use trailing 3 month averages, I think this is a belated reflection of the deep credit freeze of Spring 2009 when we thought the world might come to an end.

And here’s how condos and TICs stacked up against homes.

For what it’s worth, it feels like spring has really sprung.  Nice-looking condos/tics are swarming with people and are moving fast — no kidding.  Whether it will last is anybody’s guess.

Condo/TICs hit their all-time highs about a year later than homes did — in July 2008.  But they’ve fallen from their highs almost exactly as much as homes have.  Condos/TICs were down 17%, just one percent better than single family homes.

For those who prefer their data on a per square foot basis, the picture is pretty much the same.  The all-time high was $711 — reached in November 2008 and the price per square foot stood at $592 at year’s end, also a drop of 17%.

While condos/TICs ended the year at the same point, the pattern has not been the same. Condos/TICs have been stuck near the bottom of their 2009 range after bouncing up in the first quarter. Homes, on the other hand, appear to have bounced up and stayed up.

What’s in store for 2010 remains anybody’s guess, but on the streets it certainly feels like spring is in the air.  There are more listings coming onto the market and more people looking at them.  Will that translate into sales and higher prices?  That’ll depend on macro-economic trends I’ve discussed elsewhere, but one thing’s pretty clear:  interest rates are heading higher, as evidenced by the Fed’s recent increase in the discount rate. If the economy continues to strengthen, that trend will continue.  And, for many people, that will result in less buying power and reduced affordability.

It’s hard to remember just how close to the brink of catastrophe we seemed to be just a year ago.  Major financial institutions – failed.  Credit – impossible to get. Sales—anemic.

With the benefit of hindsight, not to mention survival, some are now criticizing Paulsen, Bernanke, et al., for their haste in rescuing the financial system, but I, for one, will reserve my scorn for the appalling judgment of the likes of Morgan and Goldman and their obscene bonuses.

How did the San Francisco market do?  Here’s where we are for single-family homes (click to enlarge).

We ended the year still down 18% from our all-time high of June of 2007.  That puts us at around the price levels of the spring of 2005.  Not great, but during those scary first months of the year when there was no bottom in sight, we were down to price levels not seen since early 2004.

It’s also interesting to see how Days on Market (DOM) inversely correlates with price, at least over longer periods.  In addition to the very regular seasonal dips in price every December/January, it’s easy to see that as DOM lengthens over time, prices decline.  While DOM remained less than 40 days, prices stayed high.  The correlation isn’t perfect – and certainly not on month-to-month time-scales — but it looks pretty good to me.

So for the “half-empty” crowd, the bottom line is that we’re still down 18% from our all-time highs.   The story looks much more positive, however, if you look at 2009 in isolation.

Now a 23% gain for the year ought to be making people feel pretty good.  Note that median prices have been in the $700,000 to $800,000 bandwidth for the last three quarters.  The dip in the waning months of the year can be attributed to seasonal factors.

I can already hear the nay-sayers arguing that looking at year end numbers is arbitrary  or, worse, distorts the picture.  (These are the same people who don’t believe in celebrating their birthdays!).

I’m certainly not arguing that happy times are here again.  But , if nothing else, that 23% increase confirms just what a wild ride the last two years have been.

As for 2010, I confess I’m beginning to feel a bit more optimistic than I was a few months ago.  Manufacturing seems to be continuing to expand.  There are some signs of job growth.  Still, Europe is now looking shaky and, closer to home, one should never discount the ability of our politicians to screw up the recovery.

All things considered, though, I’ll take my glass half-full please.