Wednesday, May 27, 2009


It's been about a DECADE (you read that right) since the yield curve has been this steep. And it's showing up in a sudden jump in mortgage rates. This picture certainly tells a thousand words.

The brokers around town will tell you that this is due to "mega-inflation." Well, a bit of it can be attributed to fears of possible inflation but it has to do with the flood of money that's trying to slow the economic fall, namely real estate (residential and commercial).

One will have to give way and as I've stated before, it will (still) be property prices. Rates will go even lower over the coming year, so the (useless marketing gimmick) "affordability" index will continue to improve.

Don't confuse a bearish sign with the senseless optimism. At least not for another year or so!

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

NJ Quickly Moves Into Top 5 Affected


The pressures and dependencies on Wall Street are becoming starkly apparent as tax support and service costs are beginning to show their toll. The fact that this is the beginning for NJ should not come as a surprise, as the lagging impact from the financial sector begins to play catch-up with the rest of the country. This won't be another Phoenix, AZ for Hudson County but it's not the halfway mark either. The accompanying graphic is an addition to the previous post.

NJ Can No Longer Buck The Trend


“We’re about to have a big problem,” says Morris A. Davis, a real estate expert at the University of Wisconsin. “Foreclosures were bad last year? It’s going to get worse.”

First it was the flippers, then it was the subprime borrowers, and now it's the prime borrowers - those who have lost their job or some portion of their income or, for whatever other reason in a souring economy, can no longer afford to make their mortgage payments.

And it should come as no surprise that prime mortgages are defaulting at the fastest pace in all the former housing bubble states.

The full story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/business/economy/25foreclose.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Friday, May 15, 2009

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Hoboken Competition Increases

Hoboken became an alternative residential destination to outrageous Manhattan prices not too long ago. As deleveraging continues over the next few years, so too will the drop in Manhattan property prices. As such, the narrowing discount will trend back to norm as asking prices will have to match the increasing lack of demand - preferences will focus back on Manhattan rather than alternatives such as Hoboken.

Inventories have just begun to increase but Hoboken price drops are attracting buyers. However, the rate at which these buyers absorb the inventory is actually falling further behind. Prices will be pressured at a greater rate despite the signs of traffic activity and interest. Nothing goes down in a straight line. And this will merely act as a slowing bump in activity as we continue downward. Hoboken properties which are selling now have been on the market for a very long time and are - on average - 40% off their asking price highs. Those asking prices meant little as the bubble popped but buyers in waiting have simply decided that they were in safer waters after such drops.

These early bargain hunters will find themselves surprisingly underwater within the next two years as what has just begun in Hoboken will trend for a long time to come.

Key to any signs of a bottom will be employment trends and they have no end in sight until late 2010 - and that's the optimistic end of the target range as Wall Street restructures, not only it's sector but its business strategy.

An interesting NY Times article summarizes the thinking behind the resurgence in Manhattan interest relative to bordering towns such as Hoboken.

------------------------------------------

May 10, 2009

Manhattan Calling

ANDREW BAISLEY described himself as a “cheerleader for Brooklyn” — at least until a month ago, when the proud Bushwickian decided to take a peek at the Manhattan rental market. Now he has a one-bedroom in Chelsea with outdoor space and a 10-minute commute, all for an “unbelievable” $2,100 a month.

“When you go to Manhattan, there’s an air of selling out,” he says. “I’ve accepted that.”

Great Recession prices are drawing even the most loyal outer-borough dwellers back to Manhattan. The migrants hail from Hoboken, Astoria and the brownstone blocks off Prospect Park, as New Yorkers who found themselves priced out of the gilded isle in the boom years are bidding farewell to long commutes and skinny-jean chic.

Among the lures: $1,600 one-bedrooms on the Lower East Side. Lenient landlords who no longer require security deposits. And an overriding sense that an obscenely overpriced borough is now, well, slightly more reasonably overpriced.

“There’s a part of me that feels like I’m cheating on Brooklyn,” said Keith O’Brien, a 30-year-old in marketing and public relations who recently jumped from a spacious two-bedroom in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, to a Lower East Side walk-up. “But this was a unique moment in real estate history where renters have the upper hand, which seemed unbelievable a couple of years ago. I realized that it would have been foolish not to start looking at places.”

For an extra $100 a month, Mr. O’Brien — a seven-year Brooklyn stalwart — is now enjoying a trendy location and a six-minute commute, in exchange for losing half of his living space. “There’s no sink in the bathroom,” he said, “but concessions must be made.”

Newly minted Manhattanites range from 30-somethings seeking a professional edge through a shorter commute, to out-of-work recent graduates who think they can get a better deal on the Upper East Side than in the usual post-college enclaves of Williamsburg and Fort Greene.

Numbers on the New York rental market are notoriously unreliable, but recent reports suggest that rents are falling faster in Manhattan than in neighboring boroughs.

In the first three months of the year, one-bedroom rents in Manhattan fell 6.7 percent compared with the previous year, while Brooklyn one-bedrooms dropped just 3.2 percent, according to data from Citi Habitats and Ideal Properties Group, both brokerage firms. Other reports show some Manhattan rents down by 10 percent from a year ago.

“I just got lucky with the whole financial meltdown,” said Kristi Giamichael, 26, who earlier this year gleefully tracked falling rental prices on Craigslist from the Hoboken duplex that she shared with two friends. She liked her neighborhood bar scene and the $1,172 rent, but realized Manhattan was no longer prohibitively expensive.

On May 1, Ms. Giamichael and a roommate moved into an 800-square-foot one-bedroom in Ruxton Towers, a landmark prewar building on 72nd Street off Central Park West. The two will split the $2,600 rent, and the landlord paid the fee to their broker, Caroline Bass of Citi Habitats.

Like many young adults, Ms. Giamichael moved to New York at a time of brutally high rents in Manhattan. Those seeking perks like in-house gyms and roof decks flocked to Hoboken and Long Island City, where amenities could be had for the price of a Yorkville walk-up.

Now, prices at upscale rental buildings like 45 Wall Street have come down significantly, discounted by 15 to 20 percent in recent weeks. At 20 Exchange Place, a tricked-out conversion around the corner from the Stock Exchange, the management company will waive the security deposit if the prospective tenant’s credit checks out. Stuyvesant Town offers the same perk on some apartments, along with waiving the broker’s fee.

“We do see that certain neighborhoods in Manhattan may be a better deal than certain neighborhoods in the boroughs,” said Stephen Love, a broker at Ardor Realty.

So some New Yorkers who came to appreciate the outer boroughs — spacious apartments, neighborhood charm — are finding reasons to return.

Matthew Creamer spent nearly a decade in Brooklyn (with a brief stopover in Hoboken), rotating through Smith Street, Cobble Hill and finally Sunset Park, where he spent four happy years in a 1,000-square-foot one-bedroom for $1,400 a month.

“I told a lot of friends that I would never move back from Brooklyn, had no desire to move back to Manhattan,” he recalled. “I said that on a lot of occasions.”

But in March, Mr. Creamer, 32, began to feel anxious about his 45-minute commute to Midtown, where he works as an editor at Advertising Age. “So much has changed in the past six months,” he said. “In the past, people wanted a separation from work on the weekend. I liked the fact that the neighborhood I lived in couldn’t be any more different from the place that I worked.”

Now, Mr. Creamer said, “people are so worried about their jobs and the general economic situation, that people don’t mind being near work. It may even make them feel a little bit safer.”

The possibility of subway cutbacks made him worry about making morning meetings on time. “At a 45-minute commute, it’s not the worst thing in the world,” he said. “But if something goes wrong, it gets ugly really quickly.”

Mr. Creamer began searching for a place near Grand Central Terminal, aware that he would have to sacrifice space (and price) for peace of mind. Last month, he moved into a studio in a building with a doorman at 33rd Street and Park Avenue with views of the Empire State Building. Although he pays more in rent than he did, he calculates that he nearly breaks even, now that he’s free of his monthly MetroCard and hefty late-night cab fares. And he received one month free on a 13-month lease.

The place is a third the size of his last apartment, and he does not have the basement storage he enjoyed in Sunset Park. At times, he misses the neighborhood feel of his old haunt.

“Nothing has changed as far as the way I feel about Brooklyn as far as it being one of the best places on earth to live,” he said. “I doubt I’ll come out of my experience in Midtown thinking that. I’ll probably like it, but I can’t imagine having the same feeling for it.”

Brooklyn on the whole is still more affordable than Manhattan: one-bedrooms east of the river cost an average of $1,901 in the first quarter, compared with $2,432 in Manhattan, according to market reports.

But the flow of Manhattanites into Kings County has apparently slowed. In the first three months of 2008, nearly a quarter of renters moving to Brooklyn hailed from Manhattan. A year later, only 9 percent of renters came from across the river, according to data from Ideal.

And some of Brooklyn’s trademark tenants — underemployed recent graduates — are also changing their minds.

For two years, Mark Schenkel, 25, has lived with roommates in a ground-floor apartment in a Windsor Terrace brownstone. Mr. Schenkel is paying $1,175 a month for a building with no laundry. His commute to work in the West Village was a half-hour haul on the F train.

“I always assumed that Manhattan was way too expensive for me and out of my reach,” said Mr. Schenkel, who moved to the city in 2006. But when his landlord threatened a $100 rent increase, he decided to shop around.

“Just for fun, I started looking at the Upper West, Upper East,” he said. “Everybody talks about how nice and ritzy it is. I was shocked to see some of the prices.”

In Yorkville, for instance, he found rents that were several hundred dollars cheaper than what he and his roommates are paying in Brooklyn.

“They’re a little bit smaller, but they have some of the amenities that I don’t have now,” he said, citing perks like a laundry and an elevator. Most of the apartments he has toured are renting for under $1,000 a person.

“A lot of these places are just desperate to find people,” Mr. Schenkel said. “People are responding to my e-mails within minutes to look at the apartment. People are saying, ‘Come whenever you want.’ ”

Craigslist directed him to a three-bedroom in a small building off First Avenue on 88th Street; the monthly rent came out to $730 a person, with no broker’s fee.

Alas, that particular apartment was “big, but had no kitchen or place to sit,” Mr. Schenkel later wrote on Twitter. “It’s like the builders forgot to include that.”

The recession has not been kind to Mr. Schenkel, who recently lost his job with a record label. But unemployment has only underscored his interest in moving across the river. The Upper East Side is home to big retail franchises like Barnes & Noble and Best Buy that may still be hiring.

In Brooklyn, he said, “all the local stores have two or three people working for them at a time. Mom-and-pop shops don’t need people in this economy.

“I never thought losing my job would be one of the reasons I end up moving to Manhattan,” Mr. Schenkel said, sounding a tad dazed. “It seems backward to me, what’s going on.”

Renters aren’t the only ones looking to move. When Paul Kolbusz, a broker at the Corcoran Group, decided to buy in 2007, he opted for a new development in Long Island City. He was willing to give up Manhattan conveniences for the extra living space.

That was before the bubble burst. Earlier this year, with construction still incomplete, the developer was obligated to offer Mr. Kolbusz the right to rescind his contract. He jumped.

“They were trying to negotiate with me in order to keep me,” Mr. Kolbusz said. “I decided against it because Manhattan opened up in ways that it hadn’t before, and I didn’t want to miss the opportunity.”

Now he is shopping in prewar buildings in Murray Hill, and mulling over a $500,000 one-bedroom with beamed ceilings on East 28th Street. The unit is just $30,000 more than the Long Island City condo he left behind, but has two-thirds of the living space.

Even as rental prices fall, a little bit of luck can’t hurt in finding that dream apartment. Perry Balin, 28, spent a year in a $900 studio in Boerum Hill. Children ran screaming in the hallways and the heat cut out in the middle of winter.

“I’d always wanted to live in the city my entire life,” she said, “and Brooklyn was my second choice. I took it because it was what I could have at the time.”

Encouraged by chatter about cheap apartments, she set off with her broker, Jeff Brenner of Citi Habitats, to a fourth-floor walk-up studio on West 95th Street just off Central Park.

“It faces the back of the building, all of the really rich people’s yards on 94th Street,” Ms. Balin said. “I look out the window and feel like a millionaire.”

Her terrier, Tess, is more social and enjoys walks in the park.

The rent: $1,225 a month. Ms. Balin, an aspiring singer, hummed when she disclosed the figure. “Now, don’t be jealous,” she said with a laugh.

Monday, May 4, 2009

A False Bottom Is Common During Deleveraging

U.S. Home Prices May Be Lost for a Generation: John F. Wasik

Commentary by John F. Wasik

May 4 (Bloomberg) -- We might be looking at a lost generation for U.S. home values.

Far too many analysts are calling a bottom to the housing market after home prices in 20 metropolitan areas declined at a slower pace in February, according to the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller Index.

Don’t be blinded by the glint of optimism in headlines about rising consumer confidence and slowing price declines. Demographic and market realities tell a more sobering story.

You won’t see a widespread housing rebound in an economy in which 600,000 jobs a month are lost and foreclosures ravage the most overleveraged areas. These are just the visible barriers to a recovery.

Mortgage lending has also been an unusually tightfisted process of late. Lenders are demanding a 20 percent deposit for home purchases, and want impeccable credit ratings. About 45 percent of U.S. banks surveyed by the Federal Reserve said they had “tightened their lending standards on prime mortgages.” I suspect that number is much higher.

Then there’s the reality that the market is glutted with homes. A record 19 million homes stood empty at the end of 2008.

What you can’t see in the most recent housing numbers is the least-visible driver of home prices today: demographics.

Baby Boomers

The baby-boomer generation, the largest in American history, will be buying fewer single-family homes.

The U.S. is experiencing a 40-year generational peak in consumer spending, one that will lead to “the first and last Depression of our lifetimes,” author Harry Dent predicts in his book “The Great Depression Ahead” (Free Press, 2008).

Although we may not be headed for a 1930s-style Depression, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that boomers are dumping their four- and five-bedroom suburban homes for two- and three- bedroom condominiums.

It’s also unlikely that the “Generation X,” born between 1965 and 1976 (or more derisively called “baby busters”), will bid up home prices. They are only 44 million strong, not as wealthy and even more in debt from college loans.

The baby boomers are reorganizing their finances after a rocky decade in stocks. They aren’t buying as many second homes and vacation properties in warmer climates.

Trouble Spots

That’s why it’s unlikely that there will be any swift recoveries in Phoenix, Las Vegas or San Francisco, where prices fell 35 percent, 32 percent and 31 percent respectively in February from a year earlier, according to the Case-Shiller Index. More setbacks are coming in central and Southern California and south Florida.

One thing hasn’t changed in this recession: Those who are mobile will continue to move where jobs are relatively plentiful and housing is cheaper.

The winners continue to be southeastern states and Texas. Some 67,000 single- and multifamily building permits were issued in the southern region in the first three months of this year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Texas alone accounted for more than 20,000 authorizations. Hot spots are still Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin.

Considering that almost 120,000 permits in the entire country were issued during that period, it shows that more than half of all new construction is in the South, where the cost of housing and living is significantly lower than in the Northeast, Midwest and on the West Coast. In contrast, just 5,571 units were approved in New York and New Jersey combined.

Rebuilding Wealth

While building permits don’t mean that housing will be built, they are one indicator of housing-market growth.

Yet don’t confuse building with the ability to restore home equity. Simply moving to another area won’t rebuild the estimated $6 trillion that was lost during the bust.

One of the reasons the housing mania was so damaging was that median home prices rose to about three times average household incomes as opposed to double income levels in 1950.

Wages simply weren’t keeping pace with housing inflation, so homeowners overleveraged to make up the difference. The wave of deleveraging will depress home prices in most markets.

It’s time to assess your options. Your home may not be a nest egg. You may never recoup your losses from the dot-com and credit busts in the stock market.

For most homeowners, wealth building and retention may depend more on a diversified, inflation-indexed bond portfolio than on real estate. This new reality, though, may be lost on those still trying to price their homes at 2006 levels.

(John F. Wasik, co-author of “The Cul-de-Sac Syndrome,” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: John F. Wasik in Chicago at jwasik@bloomberg.net.