There’s a simple way to find out what’s gone down in your house. But are you sure you want to know? (Photo: Balazs Kovacs Images/Shutterstock)
Maybe there’s something creepy about the way your stairs creak when no one is walking on them. Or maybe that new house you’re considering buying gives you chills and you don’t know why.
You don’t need to consult a psychic or a Ouija board. A new website,DiedInHouse.com, will search for murders, suicides, and accidental or natural deaths at any U.S. address. But that’s not all. Your $11.99 fee will also cover a search for any fires or meth lab activity that occurred at the location. (How practical!)
According to the website, the company has a database of 4.5 million houses that were the site of confirmed deaths, and that number is growing at a pace of about 500,000 per year. This takes the guesswork out of figuring out if anyone expired where you live or where you want to live.
Although most people would want to know about any in-house deaths, few states have laws requiring disclosure of deaths or crime to prospective purchasers. For example, according to Bloomberg, the state Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled last year that “psychological stigmas” such as deaths don’t need to be disclosed at all. It’s the same story in Massachusetts, where state law allows sellers to keep quiet about “alleged para psychological or supernatural phenomenon.”
Here are 17 digital maps from the 100 million house database created by Allan Weiss, former CEO of Case Shiller Weiss. Each house is a repeat sales index, which enables each index to anticipate values accurately up to 12 months in the future.
The colors represent month-over-month trends. Red indicates depreciation, green appreciation and gray neutral.
A full set of 90 metros and 5500 Zip codes can be found on Weissindex.com and Owners.com. Dynamic maps on the sites begin in 2006 and show changing values a month at a time.
Copyright Weiss Residential Research LLC. Provided by Owners.com. Forecasted values have a margin of error of 3 ½ percent.
With 78 million baby boomers entering or on the verge of retirement, a concerted national effort is required to adapt homes and communities for the 73 percent of seniors who prefer to age in place, according to a new report released yesterday by the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC).
The preference to grow older in one’s own home and community stems from a desire among many seniors to remain close to family and friends and maintain the social connections that have enriched their lives. They appreciate the familiarity of their own homes as well as that of the local shopping center, the community library, and their place of worship. They want to remain close to doctors, nurses, social workers, and the other professional service providers upon whom they have come to rely, according to research by AARP
That’s bad news for the nation’s real estate and housing finance industries, who have been anticipating a flood of transactions from Boomers selling their long-time residences. But its good news for remodelers eager to retrofit family homes to make them senior-safe.
Source: Adapted from Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, Housing America’s Older Adults: Meeting the Needs of an Aging Population. JCHS tabulations of US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2011
Many homes and communities are ill-equipped to accommodate this desire. Many of today’s homes were designed at an earlier time, before the demographic changes now transforming the country were even recognized. Most lack the necessary structural features that can make independent living into old age a viable, and communities so they are “senior friendly”. the BPC said.
Housing starts in the United States fell 3 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,126,000 in August of 2015, following a downwardly revised 1,161,000 in July and missing market forecasts. Housing Starts in the United States averaged 1445.58 Thousand from 1959 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 2494 Thousand in January of 1972 and a record low of 478 Thousand in April of 2009. Housing Starts in the United States is reported by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Actual
Previous
Highest
Lowest
Dates
Unit
Frequency
1126.00
1204.00
2494.00
478.00
1959 – 2015
Thousand
Monthly
Volume, SA
Housing Starts refer to the number of new residential construction projects that have begun during any particular month. Estimates of housing starts include units in structures being totally rebuilt on an existing foundation. This page provides the latest reported value for – United States Housing Starts – plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news. Content for – United States Housing Starts – was last refreshed on Thursday, September 17, 2015.
A previous post discussed how the current shortage of subcontractors in residential construction is becoming more acute. This is significant, because subcontractors are very important to the construction of the typical home. Periodically, NAHB has found it worthwhile to remind the public just how important.
NAHB addressed the topic most recently in the September 2015 Special Study in Housing Economics. The study clearly shows that builders’ use of subcontractors remains as strong as ever. For example, 70 percent of builders typically use somewhere between 11 and 30 subcontractors to build a single-family home. On average, 22 different subcontractors are used to build a home.
The questions covered how often builders subcontract 23 specific jobs. In every case, the job was always subcontracted by at least two-thirds of the builders. At the low end of the scale, “only” 68 percent of builders said they always subcontract finished carpentry. At the other extreme, subcontracting is nearly ubiquitous for some jobs. Over 90 percent of builders said they always subcontracted concrete flatwork, masonry contractor specialists, drywall, foundations fireplaces, technology, plumbing, electrical wiring, HVAC, carpeting and security systems.
Even when builders don’t always subcontract these jobs all they time, it’s common to subcontract them out at least part of the time.
About two-thirds of the builders in the survey reported subcontracting out 75 percent of the construction cost in the average single-family home they build. The average share of construction costs subcontracted was 77 percent.
Buying or selling a house is not something most of us do every day. You may do it once a decade, or even once in a lifetime. Despite the fact that most of us enter the world of real estate only rarely, we all think we know how it works, based on the experiences of friends and family members, stories we have heard and things we have read.
But for everything we believe we know about the industry, there are a number of myths that circulate about how real estate actually works. Buying into those can hurt your chances of buying or selling the right home at the right price.
In recent years, technology has radically changed the way homes are bought and sold, and yet some aspects of real estate are the same as they were when your parents bought their last home. If a long time has passed since your last transaction, you may be surprised at how much has changed.
The Internet has made much more information available to consumers, but not all the information is equal, or even accurate.
“A lot of people, for some reason, they believe what they read on the Internet,” says Gea Elika, principal broker of Elika Real Estate in New York and a regional director of the National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents. “Read everything you see on the Internet with a grain of salt.”
The danger with believing everything you hear or read is real estate myths can cost you money when it’s time to buy or sell a home. Here are nine of the most common ones that can trip up buyers and sellers:
Set your home price higher than what you expect to get. Listing your home at too high a price may actually net you a lower price. That’s because shoppers and their real estate agents often don’t even look at homes that are priced above market value. It’s true you can always lower the price if the house doesn’t garner any offers in the first few weeks. But that comes with its own set of problems. “Buyers are highly suspicious of houses that have sat on the market for more than three weeks,” says Nela Richardson, chief economist for the brokerage Redfin. In areas such as San Francisco where multiple offers are common, sellers will actually price their homes for less than they expect to get, in the hopes of getting multiple offers above asking price. However, if you do this in a declining market, the danger is that all the offers will come in at the asking price or lower.
You can get a better deal as a buyer if you don’t use a real estate agent. “That’s a completely false premise,” Elika says. If the house is listed with a real estate agent, the total sales commission is built into the price. If the buyers don’t have an agent, the seller’s agent will receive the entire commission.
You can save money selling your home yourself. Some people do successfully sell homes on their own, but they need the skills to get the home listed online, market the home to prospective buyers, negotiate the contract and then deal with any issues that arise during the inspection or loan application phases. It’s not impossible to sell a home on your own, but you’ll find that buyers expect a substantial discount when you do, so what you save on a real estate commission may end up meaning a lower price. It’s not impossible to sell your home on your own for the same price you’d get with an agent, but it’s not easy.
The market will only go up. In recent years, homebuyers and sellers have experienced a time of increasing home values, then a sharp decline during the economic downturn and now another period of increasing values. “They think that the market only goes up,” Elika says. “They don’t think about when a correction will come.” The recent recession should have reminded everyone that real estate prices can indeed fall, and fall a lot. Economist Robert Shiller created an inflation-adjusted index for home prices dating to 1890 and found that home prices have fallen a number of times over the years, including in the early 1990s, the early 1980s and the mid-1970s.
You should renovate your kitchen and bathroom before you sell. If your kitchen and baths work, a major remodel could backfire. Prospective buyers may not share your taste, but they don’t want to redo something that has just been renovated. “You’re better off adjusting your price accordingly,” says Kevin Brown Jr., president of Praedium Real Estate Services in Pittsburgh and a regional director of the NAEBA. “Most buyers want to put their own spin on things.”
“Come on, this is bullshit, this is for show, it can’t actually be real.”
When travel journalist Nick Watt was told that travelers to Havana’s Paseo del Prado could find not just snack vendors and tourists on the famous promenade, but a thriving, open-air real market where Cubans buy and sell homes, he was a bit incredulous. But as he discovered during filming of his Travel Channel Show Watt’s World, the promenade plays host to a key part of Cuba’s nascent real estate market, a recently unleashed aspect of capitalism in the socialist country that, as relations with the United States normalize, opens up a host of questions and possibilities.
“Consider real estate in the same way people look at classic cars on the street here,” he says. “People like me love Cuba, we think the cars held together with Band-Aids and the old colonial buildings are amazing. But once the money comes in, will Cubans want up-to-date buildings? In 20 years, will there be old, dilapidated buildings here?”
Footage of the open-air real estate market in Havana. Footage courtesy Travel Channel
Watt’s trip to the market provides just a small glimpse at a larger shift happening in Cuban real estate. In 2011, Raúl Castro allowed his countrymen to buy and sell real estate for the first time in decades, revolutionizing a socialist system that previously only allowed citizens to trade property, like for like. It set off a small boom in home renovations, as well as interest in acquiring and fixing up potential hotel properties that could house an influx of new tourists.
The prospect of a more open market, even incrementally so, raises the possibility of massive foreign investment in prime beachfront real estate and the country’s classic housing stock. Currently, Americans can invest by sending money to a Cuban relative or associate who acts as a frontman, but legally the deed remains in the name of the Cuban buyer, adding a degree of risk. A potentially bigger question around foreign investment may be the right-of-return issue; Fidel seized all foreign-owned property in 1962, and the U.S. government currently estimates that American citizens and corporations may have up to $8 billion in property claims to sort out as relations normalize
So far, Castro has held strong to his decision to limit real estate sales to Cubans only. Considering that a few years in, the market is still in a bit of an embryonic stage, that makes sense.
Photo courtesy Travel Channel
The sea change in property law has also encouraged entrepreneurial activity. Seizing the opportunity in Raul’s policy shift, Sandra Arias Betancourt decided to become a residential real estate agent in early 2013. Not surprisingly, she believes Cuba’s market is unlike any other. A lack of regular internet access means information sources American buyers and sellers use every day are non-existent, and only about half of sellers feel the need to involve an agent. Most just place handmade signs outside their property and negotiate themselves, Betancourt says. But still, she sees a booming market and increased opportunity.
“The market has exploded, especially since the beginning of this year,” she says. “We have a lot of people buying.”
Right now, transactions are 95% cash, she says, and she takes a standard five percent commission for any sales. To succeed, she says agents have to understand the people and what they really want. She sees a day coming soon when Americans will begin to buy more property.
“People have been sniffing around this for years,” says Watt. “I was being asked by my American friends 10 years ago to buy property. People have been trying to find ways for years.”
Tom Miller, author of Trading with the Enemy: A Yankee Travels through Castro’s Cubaand a writer who has made annual trips to Cuba since 1987, also believes that Cubans are just starting to get a sense of how the market functions. Its evident in new online property sites, such as EspacioCuba.com, which are still in their early days (founder Yosuan Crespo, a computer programmer, launched the site in 2012).
“There’s a certain amount of speculation,” says Miller, “but you need a certain amount of funds to do that, and Cuba’s not a country where people have the money for that kind of investment. What people are mostly talking about is foreign investment. You can buy things with a frontman, and Cuban-Americans are already doing it, but the whole phenomena hasn’t played out yet.”
Miller believes a few serious issues need to be resolved before Americans are snapping up homes. The mortgage system in Cuba is currently non-existent—it’s all “cash on the barrelhead”—and Cuba needs to push through planned reforms of its financial system (currently, prices are listed in CUC, the Cuban Convertible peso unit). Both legally and financially, it’s impossible for foreigners, he says
Privately-owned housing starts in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,174,000, up 9.8% (±19.9%) above the revised May estimate of 1,069,000 and is 26.6% (±19.6%) above the June 2014 rate of 927,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Most of the gains in starts and permits were in multifamily, not single-family contruction.
But the problem is single-family housing starts in June were at a rate of 685,000, 0.9% (±11.5%) below the revised May figure of 691,000. The June rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 476,000.
“While the rise in housing starts was driven by an uptick in multifamily housing, there are positive signs looming for the single-family housing market,” said Bill Banfield, vice president at Quicken Loans. “Homebuilder confidence is at its highest level in almost a decade and the number of first-time homebuyers looking to enter the market is increasing – making programs like FHA even more vital to support continued growth.”
Privately-owned housing units authorized by building permits in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,343,000. This is 7.4 % (±1.2%) above the revised May rate of 1,250,000 and is 30.0 % (±2.3%) above the June 2014 estimate of 1,033,000.
“Housing construction has nearly returned to pre-recessionary levels, as builders ramped up activity on multi-family projects including condos and co-ops,” saidStifel Chief Economist Lindsey Piegza. “While builders and lenders benefit regardless of the type of construction, the economic benefit, however, is significantly greater from single family construction as opposed to multi-family units, particularly rental properties; single family housing activity results in additional spending and borrowing power as a result of equity building which is not necessarily present in multi-family properties.
“The housing market continues to take steps in the right direction, however, growth remains far from robust; as we have seen in the recent decline in retail sales, consumers continue to struggle to afford purchases – particularly large ticket items – amid stagnant income growth,” she said. “Still, with the threat of rising rates on the near horizon, some homeowners are jumping in to lock in low rates. As we saw during the taper tantrum of 2013, despite a still-sluggish ability to finance a home purchase, many potential homeowners are willing to jump into the market sooner than later if it means avoiding a significantly higher mortgage rate.”
Single-family authorizations in June were at a rate of 687,000; this is 0.9 % (±1.1%) above the revised May figure of 681,000. Authorizations of units in buildings with five units or more were at a rate of 621,000 in June.
If I had to depend on Wall Street or Washington for an explanation of what ails the U.S. financial economy, I’d probably pick neither one. My choice would be John Griffin, a cowboy boots-wearing University of Texas financial professor, who has been on something of a roll.
Six years before Standard & Poor’s agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle state and federal government lawsuits alleging it inflated credit ratings on securitized mortgage debt, Griffin revealed—with mathematical precision—how S&P degraded its own analytical model to issue puffed-up grades.
Seven months before J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to pay $13 billion to resolve state and federal claims that it misled investors on toxic mortgage securities—the largest financial settlement with a single entity in U.S. history—Griffin showed how the bank had originated a disproportionate share of securitized mortgages flawed by undisclosed second liens (among other reporting problems).
Today, Griffin is advancing a new argument: that housing prices were more inflated—and the crash even more violent—in markets where lenders who misreported mortgages held concentrated market shares. He concludes that big banks with bad practices drove the credit bubble, and the misreporting deepened it.
“I just want to know the truth,” says Griffin, 45, who grew up playing high school football in Texas and today delivers some of his hardest hits on Wall Street.
In his latest forensic work, Griffin and co-author Gonzalo Maturana, an assistant professor of finance at Emory University in Atlanta, combed through 3.1 million mortgages originated between 2002 and the end of 2007. More than one-quarter of these loans subsequently defaulted.
While looking for inconsistencies in appraisal values and owner-occupancy status, the most interesting part of the investigation exposes how some mortgage securities were riddled with undisclosed second liens. These hidden debts reduced the borrowers’ incentive to repay their obligations. Griffin and Maturana found the gaps by comparing bank securities documents to county courthouse records.
No fewer than 10.2% of the securitized mortgages in their sample contained an undisclosed second lien. Some lenders, such as Barclays and J.P. Morgan Chase, produced nearly double the overall number of missing debts. This is startling for two reasons: first, loans with an unreported lien were 97% more likely to become seriously delinquent than were correctly reported loans; and second, the same lender originated both liens more than two-thirds of the time.
Barclays and J.P. Morgan not only had the highest levels of misreported second liens, but also the highest aggregated misreporting across all categories analyzed, according to Griffin and Maturana’s research. They also discovered owner-occupancy inconsistencies are based on county tax records mailed to a non-business address other than the purchased residence. And they tracked aberrations in appraisal value based on human appraisals that were 20% higher than a standard model-based valuation. This is a conservative measure, four times higher than a statistically significant 5% deviation.
Of the 18 largest players in the securitized market, the highest misreporting was Barclays at 41.5% and J.P. Morgan at 41%, the research finds. J.P. Morgan and Barclays both declined to comment.
Adding to the skepticism, loans with unreported second liens typically bore higher interest rates than correctly reported loans, meaning that lenders “were seemingly aware of and accounted for the second-lien risk,” according to the research, titled “Who Facilitated Misreporting in Securitized Loans?”
These undisclosed second liens spiked “significantly” around benchmark credit thresholds, meaning the omitted debts might have helped borrowers obtain the loans, on the one hand, and helped lenders to securitize them on another.
“This type of misreporting derives from the originator’s incentives to securitize,” Griffin and Maturana conclude in their paper, which is slated for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Finance.
Such analysis cuts closer than conventional blame-shifting that would hold faceless borrowers, and expansionary government credit policies, accountable.
And that takes us to Griffin’s latest research, which seeks to answer the question of whether lenders that misreported important mortgage information, played a calculable role in driving up home prices—and deepening the crash.
In this new study, titled “Did Dubious Mortgage Origination Practices Distort House Prices?” Griffin and Maturana looked at a universe of about 5,000 ZIP codes across the country. They drilled down to individual streets, where 15% or more of the home mortgages were originated by the same suspect lenders identified in the earlier study. They compared this to similar houses sold in other ZIP codes where the lenders originated less than 5% of the purchase transactions.
Unsurprisingly—based on the compounding effect of such bad practices—Griffin and Maturana found that home prices rose 63% in 858 ZIP codes with high concentrations of lenders they believe misreported mortgage information from 2003 to 2006. This contrasts with a 36% price increase in 4,318 ZIP codes with a lower presence of such originators. On the downside, from 2007 to 2012, prices decreased 40% in ZIP Codes with the higher concentrations of bad originating practices, almost double the 21% decline elsewhere.
NAHB analysis of Census construction spending data finds that over the last year, the pace of private single-family construction spending increased 7.8% and multifamily construction spending increased 23.4%, despite monthly declines for March.
For the month, the seasonally adjusted annual rate of single-family construction spending was $200.7 billion, down 1.8% from February. The March rate of multifamily construction spending was $49.2 billion, 2.1% lower than February.
The construction data (indexed in the graph below, so that the January 2000 pace is equal to 100 for both variables) illustrate the degree to which multifamily spending is thus far leading the recovery for the residential construction sector. NAHB expects gains for multifamily to slow in 2015, while single-family construction increases.
It is worth noting that the Census measure for total private residential construction spending shows a 2.6% year-over-year decline, despite annual gains for single-family and multifamily development. This decline is due to a decrease in the separate improvement category, which contrasts with other measures, including theNAHB Remodeling Market Index, which indicates strength for the home improvement sector.
From March 2014, the pace of combined public and private non-residential construction spending increased 4.7% on a seasonally adjusted annual rate basis to $611.8 billion. From February 2015, non-residential spending was effectively flat, declining 0.1%.
The largest year-over-year gains for nonresidential construction spending have been experienced by the classes of manufacturing-related construction (50.7% gain), amusement/recreation (23.8%), lodging (22%), office (19.8%), and sewage/waste disposal (19.6%).
