Friday, April 15, 2005

Property Markets Are Linked

The RE experts are quick to point out the home market is local and that lower prices in one area can't spread. This Mercury News story on "flipping" houses includes some information that may challenge that axiom.

"Bay Area residents have invested heavily in property outside the area, especially in places like Las Vegas, Sacramento suburbs and Phoenix. In the first eight months of 2004, Bay Area buyers purchased more than 13,700 homes outside the region and somewhere in western states."


At 8:30 AM, Blogger goleta said...

We all know that ultimately the housing market has to be supported by the rest of the economy. But currently it's the other way around that the real estate boom is the only growth in the economy. The bubble can keep growing
as long as the positive-feedback loop doesn't overload the system or damage the rest of the economy.

The truth is the boom is hurting the the companies in the areas with the largest bubbles. Most people with owning their own homes in mind will not want to move to the Bay area or Boston, as most companies' stock options do not show much appreciation any more to make up for the jump in home prices. Eventually, the companies can not find the right people they need and either they can't grow the businesses any more or just have to move the businesses somewhere else, most likely overseas. The housing bubble is doing the worst thing to the rest of the economy.

At 9:28 AM, Blogger Ben Jones said...

Good post and I agree. The bubble is a disaster, not a bonanza.

At 9:48 AM, Anonymous Melissa said...

I live in the suburbs of Washington D.C. There's an interesting post about that at the WSJ Blog, btw.!skip=0

Yesterday in the Washington Post Real Estate chat section, the hostess Daniela Deane was talking about how 70K new residents moved to the greater D.C. area and how Loudoun County was the 3rd fastest growing county in the U.S. and why housing is an issue of supply and demand, jobs, etc. etc.

But the above person's post made me wonder. I've been looking at the available homes for sale and rent for a few months now. Right now in Fairfax County there are 1366 homes for sale (not many, really) and 1146 homes for rent. The rental numbers don't move a whole lot.

Loudoun has 858 homes for sale and 340 for rent. Not very much inventory there.

At 9:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"about how 70K new residents moved to the greater D.C. area"

First of all, I highly doubt that number. (70K)

Secondly, 70K people need about 23,000 houses, and I'll bet that way more than that were built in the area.

Next, if 70K people moved to DC, then the market is going to crash where they came from. Ie some areas just lost 23,000 home owners.

Finally: what jobs were created that 70K people moved to DC ? Is the economy that hot there ? For 70K people to move there would require 35K good positions. Who is hiring ?

At 11:24 AM, Blogger Ben Jones said...

(what jobs were created that 70K people moved to DC ? Is the economy that hot there ?)

Homeland security, etc. The federal government has been on a keynsian quest to prevent a recession since 2000 and I don't doubt that Wash. has seen in-migration. Doesn't mean it is sustainable, though. Thanks for the comment.

At 7:03 PM, Anonymous Melissa said...

"Census figures released yesterday show that the Washington area added 75,000 residents last year, bringing the population to 5.9 million in a region that extends from the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay to Northern Virginia horse country. The sharpest increases occurred in the outer ring of suburbs."

I don't know how scientific this is, but I checked the Census Bureau for 2003 to 2004 and Fairfax County, for example, added an estimated 6,363 newcomers from July 2004 to July 2004. I checked home sales from the MRIS database for Fairfax County. There were about 26,000 properties market contract or contingent during those 12 months.


Post a Comment

<< Home