Thursday, July 21, 2011
Commercial Property in Europe Improving, mostly!
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Home Buyer Stat's for the USA
Weak sales following the expiration of the federal homebuyer tax credits, an excess supply of unsold homes, and the impact of sales of distressed homes is driving home prices down. A national, repeat-sales home-price index compiled by the company was down 5.1 percent in November from a year ago.
If that trend continues, national home prices will probably be down 10 percent year-over-year by spring.
There's been consolidation among MLSs since then and a decline in the number of for-sale-by-owner sales outside the MLS and brokerage process. That means NAR is now capturing a greater percentage of existing-home sales and doesn't need to make so large an adjustment when extrapolating its results.
The benchmarking of existing-home sales will result in "no notable changes" to NAR's previous characterizations of monthly sales changes, and no impact on price data records data captures all sales, whether they involve a mortgage or are all-cash purchases, and regardless of whether a home was listed in an MLS or not.
If that trend continues, national home prices will probably be down 10 percent year-over-year by spring.
The benchmarking of existing-home sales will result in "no notable changes" to NAR's previous characterizations of monthly sales changes, and no impact on price data records data captures all sales, whether they involve a mortgage or are all-cash purchases, and regardless of whether a home was listed in an MLS or not.
Some Fun Realtor Terminology!
Some euphemisms Realtors use in the listings:
Park-Like Setting means the lawn hasn't been mowed in years and the place is run over with weeds and overgrown shrubs
Needs Some TLC - Is a tear-me down at best; at worst, on the Municipal Cleanup list
Bring your Imagination and Ideas, hey the kitchen has orange counters with aqua appliance from the 70s; the bathroom is pink and grey 50's tiles
Idyllic Setting on Country Lane is when the property backs up to box store off a busy interstate
Winter Waterview is if you lean all the way of the attic window in January, you see a bit of water
House Full of Charm, yes, I guess at one time knotty pine paneling was considered charming
Owner Willing to Hear All Offers means the RE agent was unsucessful at convincing the owner his split ranch is not Mar-A-Lago and that the property is way over-priced
Motivated Seller is when the owner is desperate to get rid of this white elephant
Needs Some TLC - Is a tear-me down at best; at worst, on the Municipal Cleanup list
Bring your Imagination and Ideas, hey the kitchen has orange counters with aqua appliance from the 70s; the bathroom is pink and grey 50's tiles
Idyllic Setting on Country Lane is when the property backs up to box store off a busy interstate
Winter Waterview is if you lean all the way of the attic window in January, you see a bit of water
House Full of Charm, yes, I guess at one time knotty pine paneling was considered charming
Owner Willing to Hear All Offers means the RE agent was unsucessful at convincing the owner his split ranch is not Mar-A-Lago and that the property is way over-priced
Motivated Seller is when the owner is desperate to get rid of this white elephant
Monday, July 18, 2011
Not Peanuts for this House for Sale.
The cartoonist Charles Schulz, creator of the iconic "Peanuts" cartoon, purchased this Santa Rosa, Calif., spread from the Roman Catholic church and immediately set about using the on-site chapel -- he married his second wife there in 1973. That chapel has been converted into a combination media room and gym, but the six-bedroom home still bears evidence of Schulz's presence. His office, complete with typewriter, aging television, and "Peanuts" art, has been left as a sort of shrine to the famed funny pages master. The rest of the property is pretty plush, with two sizable homes totaling 8,000 square feet, two acres of well-landscaped grounds, and broad outdoor entertaining spaces, including a swimming pool.
Features List • Library Media Room • Backyard Lawn Area • Sub Zero Appliances • Solar Heated Pool • Gated Entry • Granite Counter Tops • Cabana • Security System • Fenced Play Area • Outdoor Fireplace • First Floor Master • Outdoor Dining • terraced Gardens • 1000 sq ft 2nd Home • Office Study Area • Chapel • Panoramic Views • Workout Area • Game Room • Chefs' Kitchen • Add. 2+ Acres Available for only in the low $2 Millions, in California of course!
China to Expand Real Estate Restrictions.
Jul. 18 – Following the release of statistics on the first half of 2011 which show house prices are still growing in most surveyed cities, China’s State Council said on July 12 that it will continue to implement tightening policies on its property market and expand the home-purchase restrictions to second and third-tier cities.
Seeing surging property prices as one of the major contributors to China’s high inflation, the government has already been implementing a variety of restrictive measures on the country’s property market including home purchase limits, bank interest rate increases, and even a property tax in Shanghai and Chongqing. However, the most recently-released first-half statistics show investment in property development has still witnessed a year-on-year increase of 32.9 percent and commercial and residential property sales have also surged by 24 percent from a year earlier. As such, the Chinese government has decided to make further attempts to rein in the housing bubble.
China’s Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development has embarked on drafting a new city list where home-purchase limits will be implemented. Centaline Property Agency Limited, one of the largest property agencies based in Hong Kong, predicted the new list may push the enforcement of restrictive policies to over 100 second and third-tier cities, compared to the current 40 first-tier cities.
Although only 3 out of 70 surveyed first and second-tier cities have seen a y-o-y decline in newly-built residential property prices over the past six months, Centaline’s analysis says the home-purchase restrictions – which are currently only practiced in first-tier cities – are having an effect. The y-o-y price growth rate in cities with restrictions is considerably lower at 4.04 percent, compared to the price increase pace of 4.89 percent in those restriction-free cities.
The unequally imposed restrictions may have even accelerated the property price increases in many second and third-tier cities, as a more relaxed policy environment there likely attracted more speculative investors from the first-tier cities. Data from the National Bureau of Statistics reveal that, between January and May, every city among the 70 surveyed that has reported a y-o-y property price increase of more than 5 percent is a second or third-tier city.
The real estate price surge in second and third-tier cities may bring a negative impact on government’s effort to control property prices on a national level. The government – which is still under high inflationary pressure – will very likely take the restrictions to smaller cities to curb investors’ speculation.
Seeing surging property prices as one of the major contributors to China’s high inflation, the government has already been implementing a variety of restrictive measures on the country’s property market including home purchase limits, bank interest rate increases, and even a property tax in Shanghai and Chongqing. However, the most recently-released first-half statistics show investment in property development has still witnessed a year-on-year increase of 32.9 percent and commercial and residential property sales have also surged by 24 percent from a year earlier. As such, the Chinese government has decided to make further attempts to rein in the housing bubble.
Although only 3 out of 70 surveyed first and second-tier cities have seen a y-o-y decline in newly-built residential property prices over the past six months, Centaline’s analysis says the home-purchase restrictions – which are currently only practiced in first-tier cities – are having an effect. The y-o-y price growth rate in cities with restrictions is considerably lower at 4.04 percent, compared to the price increase pace of 4.89 percent in those restriction-free cities.
The unequally imposed restrictions may have even accelerated the property price increases in many second and third-tier cities, as a more relaxed policy environment there likely attracted more speculative investors from the first-tier cities. Data from the National Bureau of Statistics reveal that, between January and May, every city among the 70 surveyed that has reported a y-o-y property price increase of more than 5 percent is a second or third-tier city.
The real estate price surge in second and third-tier cities may bring a negative impact on government’s effort to control property prices on a national level. The government – which is still under high inflationary pressure – will very likely take the restrictions to smaller cities to curb investors’ speculation.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
UK Housing Sales Down Dramatically!
Almost one in three house sales collapsed in the first six months of 2011, according to data from the UK's largest conveyancer 1st Property Lawyers. The firm said the rising number of sales falling through was due to buyers and sellers getting cold feet, the elimination of Home Information Packs and economic uncertainty.
The 29% of abandoned transactions were chiefly the result of sellers withdrawing properties from the market (39% of the sales that fell through).
HM Revenue & Customs figures show that there were 173,000 house sales in the UK in the first three months of the year, well down on the 459,000 recorded in the last quarter of 2006 when the housing market was nearing its peak.
Buyers pulling out of the purchase is the second most common reason (23%) for abandoned sales, driven by nervousness in the marketplace about house prices and fueled by fears over finances, general economic uncertainty and job security.
The 29% of abandoned transactions were chiefly the result of sellers withdrawing properties from the market (39% of the sales that fell through).
HM Revenue & Customs figures show that there were 173,000 house sales in the UK in the first three months of the year, well down on the 459,000 recorded in the last quarter of 2006 when the housing market was nearing its peak.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Is this politics, or is it strategy or stupidity?
As the whole world knows, America’s government is in danger of defaulting after August 2nd unless Congress raises the federal debt ceiling so that it can keep borrowing enough to pay its bills. For a while the markets assumed that because a default would be so scary, Republicans and Democrats would have in the end to agree on the spending cuts the Republican-controlled House demanded as its price for raising the ceiling. The Theory of Inevitable Compromise was that each party would have to give a bit because voters will punish whichever proves too stubborn. But here are eight reasons to wonder whether the theory is true.
First, for the theory to work, both parties need to believe that failing to raise the ceiling will trigger a default and the “huge financial calamity” Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, gave warning of this week. Not all Republicans do believe that. John Boehner, the House speaker, is a believer, but the freshmen who bobbed into Congress last November on a tidal wave of tea are not. Some say that the government could keep paying foreign creditors by slashing domestic spending, and that this would be just fine—even though Mr Obama refuses to guarantee even that Social Security (pension) cheques would go out without a deal.
Second, the Republicans are divided among themselves. The party’s leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, has aired a convoluted last-ditch plan that would avert a default by letting Mr Obama increase the ceiling even without a spending agreement between the parties, provided he makes cuts of the same size. Senior Democrats have welcomed the idea, but Eric Cantor, the Republican majority leader in the House, has not. Mr Cantor had already rejected Mr Boehner’s secretive attempt to negotiate what could have been an historic bargain with Mr Obama embracing a higher tax take (anathema to Republicans) as well as vast reductions in entitlement spending (music to their ears).
Noises off are the third problem. Outside Congress, the Republicans’ presidential wannabes are taking up their starting positions for 2012. Craving power but not yet possessing it, these hopefuls are not constrained by responsibility. Indeed, further economic trouble on Mr Obama’s watch might suit them nicely. Whether for this reason or from conviction, most profess themselves unfazed by the prospect of a failure to raise the debt ceiling. Newt Gingrich called Mr McConnell’s last resort “an irresponsible surrender to big government”. Michele Bachmann says she is proud never to have voted for raising the debt ceiling in the past.
Fourth, the Theory of Inevitable Compromise holds that fear of the voters will push the parties together. But which voters? Candidates in the general election of November 2012 would not want to be thought reckless. That election, however, is an age away. Republican candidates and the new House members are now fixated not on voters in general, who want the parties to co-operate, but on the more ideological ones who will vote in the primaries. Many of these do not want the debt ceiling to rise.
Why not? In part because, fifth, the theory assumes that voters understand what the debt ceiling is. This assumption is almost certainly false. Many are under the misapprehension that it is a vote to authorise new spending, not permission to pay the bills that this and earlier Congresses have already run up. According to Gallup, 60% of Republicans, 46% of independents and 21% of Democrats oppose increasing the debt ceiling at all.
Couldn’t politicians explain things better? Dream on. The sixth argument against the Theory of Inevitable Compromise is the virtual impossibility in today’s polarised America of shaping a consensus. In the 1930s Franklin Roosevelt delivered soothing chats explaining the theory of banking. But the president’s bully pulpit is not what it was before the rise of partisan cable television and the cacophony of the blogosphere empowered the obfuscators. For every commentator wringing his hands over the danger of default, another accuses the “liberals” of crying wolf.
Seventh, the listless state of the economy makes it hard for politicians of both parties to do the hard things that are needed to reduce the deficit. The Republicans say rightly that increasing the tax burden would damage jobs and growth. Democrats are right to retort that so would the spending cuts the Republicans want.
Last, but not least and most important, both sides have made a stand on principles that will be hard to abandon without losing face. The Republicans’ is that there can be no increase in tax revenues, because that is how public spending ratchets ever higher. The Democrats’ is that a deal that reduces the deficit by spending cuts alone would fall too heavily on the most vulnerable Americans.
First, for the theory to work, both parties need to believe that failing to raise the ceiling will trigger a default and the “huge financial calamity” Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, gave warning of this week. Not all Republicans do believe that. John Boehner, the House speaker, is a believer, but the freshmen who bobbed into Congress last November on a tidal wave of tea are not. Some say that the government could keep paying foreign creditors by slashing domestic spending, and that this would be just fine—even though Mr Obama refuses to guarantee even that Social Security (pension) cheques would go out without a deal.
Second, the Republicans are divided among themselves. The party’s leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, has aired a convoluted last-ditch plan that would avert a default by letting Mr Obama increase the ceiling even without a spending agreement between the parties, provided he makes cuts of the same size. Senior Democrats have welcomed the idea, but Eric Cantor, the Republican majority leader in the House, has not. Mr Cantor had already rejected Mr Boehner’s secretive attempt to negotiate what could have been an historic bargain with Mr Obama embracing a higher tax take (anathema to Republicans) as well as vast reductions in entitlement spending (music to their ears).
Noises off are the third problem. Outside Congress, the Republicans’ presidential wannabes are taking up their starting positions for 2012. Craving power but not yet possessing it, these hopefuls are not constrained by responsibility. Indeed, further economic trouble on Mr Obama’s watch might suit them nicely. Whether for this reason or from conviction, most profess themselves unfazed by the prospect of a failure to raise the debt ceiling. Newt Gingrich called Mr McConnell’s last resort “an irresponsible surrender to big government”. Michele Bachmann says she is proud never to have voted for raising the debt ceiling in the past.
Fourth, the Theory of Inevitable Compromise holds that fear of the voters will push the parties together. But which voters? Candidates in the general election of November 2012 would not want to be thought reckless. That election, however, is an age away. Republican candidates and the new House members are now fixated not on voters in general, who want the parties to co-operate, but on the more ideological ones who will vote in the primaries. Many of these do not want the debt ceiling to rise.
Why not? In part because, fifth, the theory assumes that voters understand what the debt ceiling is. This assumption is almost certainly false. Many are under the misapprehension that it is a vote to authorise new spending, not permission to pay the bills that this and earlier Congresses have already run up. According to Gallup, 60% of Republicans, 46% of independents and 21% of Democrats oppose increasing the debt ceiling at all.
Couldn’t politicians explain things better? Dream on. The sixth argument against the Theory of Inevitable Compromise is the virtual impossibility in today’s polarised America of shaping a consensus. In the 1930s Franklin Roosevelt delivered soothing chats explaining the theory of banking. But the president’s bully pulpit is not what it was before the rise of partisan cable television and the cacophony of the blogosphere empowered the obfuscators. For every commentator wringing his hands over the danger of default, another accuses the “liberals” of crying wolf.
Seventh, the listless state of the economy makes it hard for politicians of both parties to do the hard things that are needed to reduce the deficit. The Republicans say rightly that increasing the tax burden would damage jobs and growth. Democrats are right to retort that so would the spending cuts the Republicans want.
Last, but not least and most important, both sides have made a stand on principles that will be hard to abandon without losing face. The Republicans’ is that there can be no increase in tax revenues, because that is how public spending ratchets ever higher. The Democrats’ is that a deal that reduces the deficit by spending cuts alone would fall too heavily on the most vulnerable Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)