Ja mitä tulee tähän "asuntojen hinnat nousevat jatkuvasti" euforiaan, niin tässä pitkähkö sepustus aiheesta rokka76:n kynästä:
"Tässä USA:n San Franciscon alueelta kertomus, joka pätee moneen muuhunkin kaupunkiin Yhdysvalloissa, mutta myös Euroopassa, Australiassa, Kanadassa.
Ihmisten euforia on huipussaan ja siksi väärät uskomukset vielä pitävät tilannetta pinnalla.
US Housing Crash Continues
Muutama ote artikkelista:
"House prices never fall."
FALSE. San Francisco house prices dropped 11 percent between 1990 and 1994. This means that people who bought in SF in 1990 probably did not break even in dollar amounts until about 1998. Even then, those buyers effectively loaned their money to the sellers for 8 years at no interest, losing all the while to inflation. With inflation, 1990 buyers truly broke even only about the year 2000, ten years after buying.
Worse: Los Angeles' average house plummeted 21 percent from 1991 to 1995. But the current crash looks to be even worse than that one because so many people are in over their heads.
Ja kuten Suomessakin erityisesti 1990-1993. 2001 myös minitaantumassa hintojen kehitys hetkeksi jo pysähtyi, osittain kääntyi hetkeksi alaspäin, kunnes nopeasti aleneva korkotaso käänsi suunnan.
"House prices don't fall to zero like stock prices, so it's safer to invest in real estate."
FALSE. It's true that house prices do not fall to zero, but your equity in a house can easily fall to zero, and then way past zero into the red. Even a fall of only 10% completely wipes out everyone who has only 10% equity in their house. This means that house price crashes are actually worse than stock crashes. Most people have most of their money in their house, and that money is highly leveraged.
Tätä kannattaa hetki miettiä lainaa hakiessaan.
"If and when the market goes south, you can walk away."
FALSE. If you have a single loan with just the house as collateral, it may be a "non-recourse" loan, meaning you could indeed walk and not lose anything other than your house and any equity in it (along with your credit record). But if you refinance or take a "home equity loan", the new loan is probably a recourse loan, and the bank can get very aggressive, not to mention what the IRS can do. A reader who lived through the 1989 housing crash in LA pointed out the following nasty situation that can happen:
Let's say you buy a house for $600,000, with a $500,000 mortgage.
Then the house drops in value to $400,000, you lose your job, or otherwise must move.
If you can't make your payments, the bank forecloses on you and nets $350,000 on the sale of your house.
The bank's $150,000 loss on the mortgage is "forgiveness of debt" in the eyes of the IRS, and effectively becomes $150,000 of reportable income you must pay tax on.
It is true that buyers who put zero down and have nothing invested in the house are much more likely to walk away. The large number of new uninvested buyers increases the risk of a horrifying crash in prices rather than a "soft landing".
Velkarahaa siis pumppautuu systeemiin yhä enemmän ja enemmän, joka ruokkii hintojen nousua ja myös kulutusta (asuntojoustot ja vastaavat lainat, tyypillisiä ulkomailla) tiettyyn pisteeseen asti.
"The house down the street sold for 25% over asking, and that proves the market is still hot."
FALSE. Realtors® try to create the false impression of a hot market by deliberately "underpricing" a house. Say a seller's agent knows that house will probably go for $500,000. He places ads asking $400,000 instead. (Bait-and-switch is illegal when selling toasters, but apparently not when selling houses.) The goal is to first of all prevent buyers from knowing what a realistic price is, and secondly to get buyers to blindly bid against each other. There are four players in this game and three of them are against the buyer: the seller, the seller's agent, and the buyer's agent. Yes, the buyer's own agent works against the buyer, because there is no commission if there is no sale. There's a saying in Las Vegas: "There's a patsy in every game, and if you don't know who the patsy is, you're it."
Patsy, sopuli...
"There's always someone predicting a Bay Area real estate crash."
TRUE, yet irrelevant. There are very real crashes every decade or so. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
"Look, housing continued to rise after the dot-com crash, so it will always rise."
FALSE, consider the turkey in the farmer's barnyard. He thinks the farmer will always come feed him and not ask for anything. Then Thanksgiving comes. Whack. Past performance is no indication of future results.
"It's not a house, it's a home."
FALSE. It's a house. Wherever one lives is home, be it apartment, condo, or house. Calling a house a "home" is a manipulation of your emotions for profit.
"House ownership is at a record high, proving things are affordable."
FALSE. The percentage of their house that most Americans actually own is at a record low, not a high. We do have a record number of people who have title to a house because they have dangerous levels of mortgage debt, but that is no cause to celebrate.
"California houses are worth whatever people will pay for them!"
FALSE. Houses are worth something like 20x what you can rent them out for per year, so maybe $350,000, not $700,000.
Looking at it another way, houses are worth about 4X the median household salary of an area, so again, maybe $280,000, but definitely not $700,000.
"Houses always increase in value in the long run."
FALSE. House values are actually constant. Adjusted for inflation, prices in Holland, for example, rose less than one quarter of one percent annually in the 350 years since their tulip bubble. Warren Buffett and Charles Schwab have both pointed out that houses don't produce anything. They do not increase in intrinsic value. Unless there's a bubble, house prices simply reflect current salaries and interest rates. Consider a 100 year old house. Its value in sheltering you is exactly the same as it was 100 years ago. It did not increase in value at all. It did not spontaneously get bigger, or renovate itself. Quite the opposite - it drained cash from its owners for 100 years of maintenance and taxes. Its price went up about as much as salaries went up.
"The limited land in the Bay Area means prices will always go up."
FALSE. Japan has a very severe land shortage, but that hasn't stopped prices from falling for 14 years straight. Prices there are now at the same level they were 23 years ago. If we really had a housing shortage, rents would be going up, but they're going down instead.
Niinpä. Sama argumentti aina kaikkialla. Maa on rajoitettua, maata ei tule lisää. Jep, kertokaa se japanilaisille.
"Maybe we should just accept that we missed out on a great opportunity to get into the real estate in the past N years."
FALSE. Did we all miss out on a great opportunity to get into the stock of pets.com or other Internet companies with no business model? The real question is what is likely to happen in the next few years according to fundamental economics. The answer is a huge crash. The last guy to buy into the bubble will get hurt the most.
Ja tämä viimeinen on juuri sitä, mitä tämäkin palsta on pullollaan. "Mitä pidempään viivyttelet, sitä kauemmaksi asuntojen hinnat karkaavat ja kohta sinulla ei ole siihen enää varaa." Niin. Käännetään se toisinpäin:
"If you don't buy now, you'll never get another chance."
FALSE. This argument was also popular in 1989 in Los Angeles, just before a huge crash. It is silly. If no one like you ever gets another chance to buy a house, then you will not be able to sell your house in a few years either, because, hey, there will be no more buyers like you, ever.
Kuulostavatko nämä argumentit hintakuplan puolesta tutuilta? Ne ovat täsmälleen samoja kuin täälläkin palstalla. Ottamatta kantaa itse hintakehitykseen, niin merkit, tunnelma (euforian voi aistia), sekä uskomukset pysyvät vielä kovina. Se on kuin saippuakupla - ensin puhalletaan, kupla irtoaa puhaltimesta, se leijailee kauniisti kylpyhuoneen kattoa kohti, poksahtaa silmänräpäyksessä ja putoaa pisaroina lattialle.
Nyt kun muistaa miten paljon rakentaminen, remontit, kiinteistövälittäminen, myydyt raaka-aineet, talopaketit, pankkien toiminta tuovat BKT:n kasvuun suoraan lisää globaalisti (USA:ssa n. 40% BKT:stä) ja mitä kuplan puhkeaminen tarkoittaa.. minkä se tekee 100%:sen varmasti. Asuntoja ei voi käyttää automaatteina, kuten nyt on tehty. Se on kupla, jolla ruokitaan samaa kuplaa. Tämä on tilanne USA:ssa ja vastaavia merkkejä on muuallakin. Puhkeamisen seuraukset eivät missään tapauksessa ole "Soft Landing", tai pehmeä mahalasku, vaan katastrofaaliset. Uskoo ken tahtoo, tai olkoon uskomatta.
Edellisen kerran USA:ssa, kun asuntokupla puhkesi osakekuplan ja velkakuplan kanssa yhtäaikaa, 1929 lokakuussa, seuraavien 4v aikana BKT:sta leikkaantui n.30% pois, teollisuustuotannosta yli 40%. Japani käy myös esimerkistä hyvin."