Monday March 22, 2010 7:39 AM ET
SmartMoney
Published May 9, 2008  |  A A A
Ahead of the Curve by Donald Luskin (Author Archive)

Columnist Defends View on Housing Market

LAST WEEK IN this column I committed the sin of daring to say something mildly bullish about the housing market. That's heresy, downright blasphemy, in the eyes of those who adhere to the religion of bearishness.

Just check out the comments section of last week's column. They don't just disagree with me, they're enraged at me. And believe me, you don't want to see the hate mail I get. Or hear the threatening phone calls.

The perma-bears want to burn me at the stake just because I noted that the sharp decline in house prices, in relation to per capita disposable income and prevailing mortgage interest rates, makes housing very affordable right now. So maybe we're somewhere near a bottom, I said. Is that so bad?

And I noted that the economy has already shed about 1.5 million housing-related jobs, returning employment in that sector back to the levels seen before the housing bubble got started. So maybe the slump in payroll jobs is somewhere near a bottom, I said. Is that so bad?

Apparently so. For perma-bears, it seems to be an article of absolute faith, that housing is in an ever-deepening crisis that will drag down the whole economy. And in a classic case of circular logic, they think that the bad economy is dragging down housing.

I don't want to be misunderstood as taking a symmetrically dogmatic position. I'm not pounding the table saying the severe housing slump really is at an end, right here and right now. The sector is obviously under tremendous stress, and it faces serious headwinds. But it can't keep going down forever, and when affordability hits all-time highs (which it has) and when housing-related employment goes back to preboom levels (which it has), one has to wonder whether the worst is over.

With that qualification, let me address some of the points made by my critics. My SmartMoney.com editor pointed me to an online rebuttal to last week's column, posted on the Market Oracle web site. The author of the rebuttal may disagree with me, but I appreciate that he refrained from ad hominem attacks and confined his arguments to matters of judgment. So I'll use his article to frame my response.

First, the author argues that housing has yet to correct from a very serious run-up. He says, "Housing prices rose 100% in many big markets from 2002 to 2006. Even more in some places. We have now seen a 30% decline. We need to see a 50% decline and that is just to get back to a point at which houses were already expensive."

1
2
Next

Follow SmartMoney on Facebook, Twitter & More: Facebook Twitter
Bookmark and Share RSS
Order ReprintsOrder Reprints
User Comments
Posted by: leowcathy
I agree with your rebuttal to that posters arguments. However, my opinion you are too early still stands.

I notice you didn't try to refute my more logical comment.
Posted by: widesmile
Both articles were great. Raw materials sitting in that house built in 1998-2005 put more squeeze on home builders with supply and demand imbalances. Are we adding more new buyers of homes in this current economy? I think youre right long term, but short term 2 to 3 years does anyone expect 5 to 10 returns? I think that is as implausable as whatever measurement returning to 2002 levels.
Posted by: corrugate
I am not proposing a perpetual bear. But there is certainly a free fall right now.

I would appreciate Luskin responding to the following. He writes there is no housing crisis in Silicon Valley. What is a 20% price drop in under 1 year? Depends how you define crisis I guess. Prices are dropping 100,000's of dollars in the Valley here between a house listing and a few weeks when the seller realizes he can't sell.

By the way, the middle number, or median, represents numbers much better than an average inflated by $10million mansions. Reputable stats are given in median or at least give both median and average.

See DQNEWS.COM from April 17th:
The median price paid for a Bay Area home was $536,000 last month, down 2.2 percent from $548,000 in February, and down 16.1 percent from $639,000 in March last year. Last month's median was 19.4 percent lower than the peak median of $665,000 reached last June and July.
Posted by: cblanchard
Don, I think you're right. As someone who has never owned, I am licking my chops right now. I will likely be a buyer in the next 12 months as prices continue to decline or stay flat. After watching the bubble for the past several years and not wanting to get in at the top...I'm ready to get in on the downslope. And assuming there are others like me out there, we'll be slowing the drop or maybe even propping up the market somewhat.
I just hope our boneheaded Congress doesn't make me pay for all the speculators and people that bought more house than they could reasonably afford. And I'm tired of the blame being put on anyone but these same idiots. If you sign an agreement that commits you for 30 years, shouldn't you understand it?
Posted by: wcanada
In the retail mortgage brokerage business for the past 14 years, its going to be at least 12-24 to even get to a bottom imo; credit has never been tougher to qualify for, Jimmy Carter might have been worse, but we currently sit in spot number 2 if that is the case. Nobody is immune. There is absolutely zero demand, and an ever geometrically growing inventory that eventually will be vacated and bank owned... its going to get MUCH WORSE before it gets even the slightest more better; I'm not invested, I have no assets, I work for a living... just my perspective. To say or imply/infer that we are not experiencing one of the more procounced difficult economic periods in our history presently is to have your head lodged far up your you know where... I could bring 100K to the table to sell my home and I still would not have a buyer to sell to.
Advertisements
 
Retrieving data...