Playing the Odds

We were doing some research this week, and were startled to discover that, from January 2010 through the present date, only one-third of all listings taken have sold.  That means that, for every seller who put his or her home on the market and sold it, two sellers put their homes on and nothing happened.  If you add those people who haven't bothered to list their properties due to the poor selling climate, there is a big supply out there. 

Since real estate agents work solely on commission, this is obviously a troubling state of affairs.  We only get paid one out of every three times we list a home, and listing always used to be the guaranteed way to make money, since the percentage of buyers who look and don't buy is higher than that of sellers who don't sell.  The combination is deadly.

 It does prove, however, that sellers should be listening to their agents about the price and improvements necessary to attract an offer in today's market.  What's the point of cleaning everything up and making plans to move, only to sit there for two years without a sale?  If you do want to sell, you need to do more than just sign a listing--you actually need to have a property in the top third of all properties, in order to sell it.  That's food for thought.

An Idea to Move the Market

Much thought and discussion went into the enactment and extension of the first-time homebuyer tax credit, and it clearly impacted the market, both while it was in effect, and after it expired. It moved sales for last year into the first half, and the immediate drop in activity and sales beginning last July proved that it motivated people to buy before it ran out.

Although I have my issues with that credit, both in terms of policy and in practice, there is no question that it made a difference while it was in effect, and that the market responded. It is also clear that the jump start that the government must have hoped that it would give to real estate did not occur, as sales fell off as soon as it was over. In retrospect, I think that the government was right in thinking that we needed that kind of stimulus, and I think we need to try again. After all, cash for clunkers helped the auto industry, the TARP money helped the financial industry, and real estate is still lagging. It is hard to imagine any real recovery taking place without our industry improving.

My problem with the first-time homebuyer credit was that it aimed at exactly the people who would buy in any type of market: those forming households; and renters with no homes to sell. One of the main problems with the current market is that it is stopped up, because sellers who can sell refuse to do so, because they feel that they are losing equity, even though that perceived equity may have been phantom gains.

In order to give an incentive for those who can to sell now, and to buy something else, I propose that the government offer a one-time tax credit for sellers who will lose equity when they sell, on the same terms and up to the same amount as the first-time credit. So, for example, someone who paid $200,000 for her house and now is selling for $180,000 could deduct up to $8000 on her tax bill this year. I believe that the market may now be ready for the jump start that such a program could provide, and that it would help even more than the last incentive, since it would both produce a supply of homes for others to buy, and sales for developers and other sellers when those people buy a new place to live. It's time for bold action, and helping the housing industry would be good for everyone.

Still a Divided Market

The real estate market is more complicated than it would appear from reading the papers. There are things that are selling, and selling quickly. There are other properties that are hanging around, some without even being shown. This has been true for a while now, but it's not what people expect in a so-called "buyer's market" (read "bad real estate market").

In more traditional renditions of a buyer's market, there are not enough buyers, and so they can bid low on properties, and sellers will have to take low offers if they want to sell. It tends to be true across all segments of the market, from starter homes to mansions. In a seller's market, the opposite occurs: People who want to get a property need to move quickly and bid high, or they will lose to other, more motivated buyers.

This market has aspects of both. Many people have listed their properties a long time ago, and those places have been sitting around. They are often overlooked by agents and buyers, as they can be considered as tired, and usually as overpriced. Other places come on, attract attention right away, and sell quickly, sometimes with multiple offers. What's the difference? Sometimes it's location, or staging, or size. Sometimes there's just a buyer who needs what a seller is selling, and needs it right away. More often, however, it's perceived value. The market--that amorphous body of economic value judgment--rates the property as a good value, and that sparks interest.

All of this makes it difficult to price properties. However, the possibility of multiple bids and early interest means that it's hard to underprice in today's market, as buyers will bid the price up to where it can/should be. It's easy, unfortunately, to overprice. Many sellers look at what's on the market at the time, and place their home in the range that they feel it belongs, without distinguishing between the overpriced inventory and the value properties that are getting all the interest. And that's a big mistake. Look at what's sold, and do it with a clear eye. Then listen to your real estate agent, and get your property into the sold column. Then you can become a buyer, and use all that knowledge to get a great value!

Real Estate Around the Country

I just returned from my semi-annual meeting with other large independent brokers from around the country. This time, we met at Lake Lanier in North Georgia. The weather was great, but the real estate climate is, in some respects, sobering. National experts are saying that equal supply and demand and a "normal" market may come as late as 2015. Sales for the first quarter were down around the country, in double digits. Some of that was weather-related, but the rest is still about jobs and financing issues.

There is a silver lining, though, and it's a big one. The interesting news was that prices of sold properties were up by a fraction, 1% or so. This is counterintuitive, if you think about the effect of foreclosed properties and short sales on the value of homes. What it seems to suggest is that it is the best homes (not the most expensive, but the most desirable homes in every price category) that are moving. What that means for sellers is that homes must be put on the market at levels that seem to be good values.

What it means for buyers is even more important. There aren't great bargains out there, at least on homes that are well priced and well maintained. Putting in a lowball offer isn't going to result in a purchase. It goes back to the old saying "You get what you pay for". If you want it, you're going to have to buy it at its value, and not at a fraction.

We just had an offer on a commercial property with a listing price of $2.1 million. Someone submitted an offer of $700,000. That's just wasting everyone's time. The statistics seem to indicate that the short sales and foreclosures aren't yet changing prices on regular properties, and given what we are experiencing in delays on such sales, we can vouch for that. Those things are backed up in the pipeline. What's moving through are the good deals, but they are good deals at good prices, not bargain basement fire sales. Buyers should assume that they won't get what they want if they insist on bottom fishing. It may be a sport, but it's not a strategy.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling (NOT)

I had a call from an appraiser today inquiring into the details of a sale I recently closed. She said she has heard from several people in the business that CAP rates had increased to as high as 7 on similar deals. The sale she was calling me about was a sub-5 CAP well located 23 unit apartment building.

I asked her if she had any sales that have closed at CAP rates like she was telling me and she said that no, actually, she was confused as to why the sentiment would be that CAP rates had risen so much in the past few months when the sales she was seeing close were actually not much different than last summer. I asked her if maybe her sources were buyers or lenders and she replied that yes, in fact, the people she had talked to were lenders and one buyer.

So here is the thing: if you own an operating apartment building today you are probably fully rented with rents higher than a year ago. Regardless of what the media says you are feeling pretty good about owning that asset. If you weren’t selling last summer and are now a buyer wanna-be, lender wanna-be, or an appraiser tells you that the sales value today is 20% lower than last summer you certainly are not selling today. The point is that the people selling today (and there are 2-4 apartment building sales that close every week lately) are selling for pricing similar to last summer. I guess this defies prevailing wisdom (or really just wishful thinking by a lender who really isn’t actually making any loans on apartment buildings anyway).

Buyers are able to get debt for apartment buildings pretty much the same as a year ago. Rates are up slightly but still in the mid 6% range for fixed rate loans. Well located mid-size apartment buildings always trade at a price with a CAP rate lower than the debt rate (well, at least for the past 22 years). The rental market for apartment has rarely looked better and alternative investments have rarely looked worse.

I haven’t seen any evidence of sales at lower prices but I sure have heard a lot of talk about it. The problem is that it is all talk.