This entry was posted on Monday, May 21st, 2007 at 4:45 am and is filed under Sac Real Estate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Raiding the Nursery: How Quickly Will Sacramento Real Estate Recover?

What will it take to shock the Sacramento real estate market back to life?
Behind the mask of false bravado and feeble optimism worn by industry insiders who think wishing can make things true, there is an undercurrent of worry. Let’s face it. The patient is ill. What will turn things around? In a word, affordability.
It’s pretty clear that we chucked the idea of affordability in the early 2000’s as home prices and incomes parted company. People bought homes they couldn’t afford with loans that offered low initial payment but blew up after a couple of years. The speculative fever that ensued was supported by low interest rates, easy-qualifying loans and 100% financing. Builders responded by flooding the market with new homes geared to the move-up market, at prices affordable mostly to those who had previously experienced windfall profits. Then the music stopped, and all the chairs were gone.
So here we lie. Too much inventory, too few buyers. Sales are slow at every level, though Sacramento real estate prices have retreated to mid 2004 levels. Despite sellers’ attempts to get in front of the decline, buyers pitch low-ball offers on everything. I attended a recent auction featuring the last 6 homes in a 220 unit Elk Grove subdivision. The seller, a national home builder, was able to unload only 3 of those 6 homes even at steeply discounted prices. What’s the problem? Again, affordability.
The key to finding our pulse again lies with the first time home buyer. Only they can unlock equity for would-be move-ups. But have we raided the pipeline during the last few years? I found this article on freeERISA.com. It’s kind of a summary of observations made by bubble bloggers, who can seem prone to hysteria and hyperbole. But distilled in this fashion, the thoughts are pretty compelling. I pasted one section, but go read the whole article if you have time.
Demand for Homes
Among professional economists and media analysts who believe the U.S. housing market is near a bottom, few have identified expected sources of increased demand. Bloggers paint a picture of demand across four segments: 1) first-time buyers; 2) second-home (vacation) buyers; 3) investors/flippers, and 4) traders.
Although traders account for the majority of existing home sales, they have little impact on the supply-demand balance because they sell one home to buy another. As the market has cooled in late 2006 and 2007, investors/flippers have become scarce on the buy side. Vacation buyers remain plentiful, but bloggers believe this segment will dump more net supply on the market than it absorbs over the near term.
That leaves the most pivotal segment of all, first-time buyers, who provide liquidity for traders, investors and flippers. In normal markets, demographic trends suggest that about one million first-time buyers per year flow through the pipeline, with an average age of first purchase in the early 30s.
However, bloggers believe that there are fewer qualified first-time buyers available today than there should be because “the pipeline was raided” in the buying frenzy of 2004-2006. Many first-time buyers were lured into an overheated market with easy credit, even though they weren’t qualified to buy. Now, having been steered into costly subprime mortgages, a growing number face foreclosure. With their credit in tatters and tighter credit standards in place, this “lost generation” of former homeowners may not be able to re-enter the buyer pool for years.
U.S. Census data supports the view of a depleted first-time buyer pipeline. Homeownership rate among householders less than 25 years old increased from 21.7% in 2000 to 25.7% in 2005. Bloggers believe it will take several years to rebuild the pipeline of qualified first-time buyers to a normal level. They also believe professional economists and analysts have consistently and inexplicably missed the importance of the depleted first-time buyer pipeline in trying to explain why buyer traffic has been so thin this spring. It isn’t the weather!
So the market will return to normal when the fundamentals or income and price once again realign. I’m guessing that happens when prices reach mid-2003 levels. With first-time buyers having to qualify on real income—no more liar loans—prices have a little further to fall for that to happen. Just my opinion of course.
Got an opinion on this? Please leave a comment below.
Got a question, need to be pre-qualified, or want a quote? Email me.




May 21st, 2007 at 5:21 pm
“Lost generation” of buyers — it sounds like something out of a movie, but it’s fitting for a group that bought beyond their means when interest rates were low, only to be left out in the cold now that their payments are soaring. I’d be disillusioned with the market, too.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:29 am
my daughter and her husband (25ish) are saving now for their first home….in sunny SoCal. It’s been a struggle for them, but what does not kill them builds character. They replaced the 4bd/3bth home/pool they were renting for a 2bd apt. Now only 6 months from their goal for their 20% down payment. After many conversations and dreams of granduer, they’ve come to understand that their first purchase will in no way match the beautiful rental or their family home they grew up in….BUY THE WORST HOUSE IN THE BEST NEIGHBORHOOD YOU CAN AFFORD…that’s what I was taught, that’s what I have finally convinced them….my first house is affectionately referred to as my little “teardown”. Purchased $180K in 92, sold in 95 for $350K after a lot of back breaking work…but it got me to a better neighborhood….that’s what the next generation homebuyer needs to learn.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:50 am
Erin, yes those were ones who caught speculation fever. Even first time buyers the last few years were often thinking about short term profits rather than long term home ownership. I bought in 1989 in Folsom at the peak of that market only to find my home worth less than I paid until about 1995. Didn’t matter because I bought a home that was perfect for my family long term. Now of course it’s worth several times what I paid. Moral: in the long run real estate is a good bet.
Michelle: you’ve given your daughter good counsel. They will have a greater appreciation for that home after saving and deferring the purchase until they are ready. They’ll also have missed the current mess and will be on solid financial ground. My sermon these days has two key points: “buy the house, not the deal”, and “shop the lender, not the rate”.
It’s all about value and long-term thinking.
Thanks for your comments!