Seattle Bubble

News & discussion about real estate & the housing bubble in the Seattle area.

Seattle Bubble - News & discussion about real estate & the housing bubble in the Seattle area.

Entries Tagged as 'demand'

The Mythical Teeming Hordes of “Pent-Up Buyers”

By The Tim on October 7th, 2009 at 10:45 AM · 54 Comments

We’ve been hearing a lot of speculation recently that goes something along these lines:

There is basically this enormous teeming horde of potential home buyers out there lurking on the sidelines for no good reason. All we need to do is come up with the right concoction of incentives to get these pent-up buyers off the fence and the housing market will recover!

Here’s just one example of that kind of reasoning from an article yesterday’s Tacoma News Tribune:

According to Dick Beeson, a Windermere broker and a director of Northwest MLS, the latest numbers reflect “a lot of pent-up demand. A lot more people are realizing closed sales.”

As regular readers of these pages will recall, I do not buy the claim that there is a large mass of “pent-up demand.” In fact, I believe quite the opposite is true: that during the bubble (thanks to virtually non-existant lending standards and a mass get-rich-quick hysteria) and now post-bubble (thanks to various bailouts, tax incentives, and artificially low interest rates) a significant amount of demand has been borrowed from the future.

Let’s take a few moments to visualize the concept of borrowed demand using data on closed sales and population. Here are our working assumptions:

  • The number of closed sales in the year 2000 is a reasonable baseline for a healthy market.
  • In a normal market, closed sales will grow linearly as a function of households.
  • Household size since the 2000 Census has remained steady at 2.39 people per household.
  • For 2009, fourth quarter closed sales will come in 10% above 2008.

Based on these assumptions, here’s a view of the cumulative “borrowed demand” by year since 2000.

Cumulative Borrowed Demand

While sales in 2001 and 2002 were fairly close to what our assumptions would have predicted (slightly lower, probably due to the dot-com bubble fallout), as the housing bubble began to inflate in 2003 the number of borrowed sales started to pile up at an alarming pace, peaking at over 23,000 in 2006.

Since 2005 when closed sales peaked at 31,939 (vs. a forecast “normal” level of 24,118), the number of closed sales has dropped significantly, falling to roughly half the peak level in 2008 at 15,991. To real estate agents, these declining sales numbers indicate that there must be a building volume of “pent-up demand.” However, as the chart above demonstrates, this is merely what it looks like when the market is forced to pay back the demand that was borrowed from the future.

If sales had been allowed to continue correcting at the natural rate we were seeing in the first few months of the year, the entire borrowed demand debt would likely have been paid in full in 2009, allowing sales volumes to begin to recover to a more normal level in 2010. Instead, the market has been innundated with misguided attempts to bring out the non-existant “pent-up demand,” and the way things are shaping up right now it looks like last-ditch borrowing of future demand will leave us with a few thousand sales still to be paid back sometime in the future, likely resulting in a continued drag on demand in 2010 and 2011.

“Pent-up demand” is a myth. That’s not to say that there aren’t some legitimate potential buyers out there with the ability to purchase who are sitting on the sidelines waiting for a better market opportunity. However, they are most certainly far outnumbered by the buyers who purchased prematurely in 2003-2006 that would otherwise have waited a few years to buy once their finances were more in order.

→ 54 CommentsCategories: Features
Tags: , , , , ,

Poll: Which is likely to generate the strongest downward pressure on Seattle-area home prices going forward?

By The Tim on July 26th, 2009 at 12:05 AM · 27 Comments

Please vote in this poll using the sidebar.

Which is likely to generate the strongest downward pressure on Seattle-area home prices going forward?

  • Bank-owned inventory coming on the market. (33%, 66 Votes)
  • Currently stalled new construction being built. (2%, 4 Votes)
  • Currently vacant new construction hitting the market. (1%, 2 Votes)
  • Tighter financing / down payment requirements. (31%, 61 Votes)
  • Continued layoffs at local employers. (31%, 62 Votes)
  • The expiration of the $8,000 tax credit in November. (2%, 3 Votes)

Total Voters: 198


This poll will be active and displayed on the sidebar through 08.01.2009.

→ 27 CommentsCategories: Polls
Tags: , , , , , ,

Seattle-Area Housing Oversupply Still Increasing

By The Tim on July 13th, 2009 at 9:41 AM · 42 Comments

One set of data we like to check in on occasionally is the big picture of local housing supply and demand, measured by comparing the total number of housing units to the total number of households. You may recall the last time we checked in on this data back in March: Local Housing Oversupply Could Disappear by July 2010…

Good news everyone!

The latest population estimates for King County have been released by the Census Bureau, and at the present rate of population growth, we’ll be able to use up all of our excess housing inventory by July of next year…

if all residential construction across the county completely ceased after July 2008, that is.

Our previous excursions into this data have been based on Census Bureau estimates, which are unfortunately not very timely. However, the Washington State Office of Financial Management keeps its own sets of estimates which are much more current. In fact, their latest release a few weeks ago provides data through April of this year.

Here’s an updated chart of housing supply (total housing units) and demand (total households) for the 3-county Puget Sound region, indexed to 2000:

Puget Sound County Housing Supply & Demand

Across King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties, a total of 147,591 new households have been added since 2000. During the same time, 184,378 new housing units have been built, amounting to an oversupply of 36,787 housing units.

Here’s a look at the raw number of housing units and households that were added to the region each year:

Puget Sound County Housing Supply & Demand

Only 2004 and 2005 had people moving here faster than new housing stock was coming online, and 2006 more than made up for the discrepancy in short order.

Here’s the indexed chart for King County only:

King County Housing Supply & Demand

In King County, we’ve added 65,443 households and 90,157 housing units over the past nine years, for a total oversupply of 24,714 housing units.

Here’s the year-by-year chart for King County:

King County Housing Supply & Demand

Here in King, only 2005 saw a larger addition of households than housing units. Even between 2008 and 2009, 3,304 more housing units were added than new households.

So it would seem that rather than working through our local housing oversupply, we’re still adding to it.

→ 42 CommentsCategories: Features · Statistics
Tags: , , , ,

Which is Larger: Pent-Up Demand or Pent-Up Supply?

By The Tim on April 9th, 2009 at 8:48 AM · 142 Comments

Whenever local real estate professionals are quoted in the paper lately, it seems that one line we’ve been hearing repeated a lot is about the alleged loads of “pent-up demand” out there.

The thinking goes that there are hundreds thousands upon thousands of potential buyers out there that are “waiting on the sidelines” or “sitting on the fence,” and as soon as the housing market starts to pick back up again, they will all rush in at once and the market will be hot hot hot once again, and the opportunity for good deals will have passed.

Let’s explore that theory, shall we? In the chart below I have plotted total yearly closed sales for 2000 through 2008. The bars are centered on the 2000-2002 average (23,106), to give us an approximate visual of how each year compares to the pre-bubble housing market.

King County SFHs: Pent-Up Demand

The “pent-up demand” that the local real estate salespeople love to talk about so much is represented in that big dip in 2008, where sales fell over 30% below our 2000-2002 baseline.

However, the chart also tells a story that you never hear real estate salespeople talk about… From 2003-2006, demand was far above the baseline, with average excesses of 30% for four straight years. This is what I like to refer to as “borrowed demand.”

The total borrowed demand from 2003-2006 was 27,798 sales. The demand shortfall in 2008 was a mere 7,115 sales, enough to “pay back” 26% of the borrowed demand of the bubble years.

Is there some pent-up demand? Probably a little bit, but in reality, the amount of pent-up demand out there will likely still be dwarfed by the amount of borrowed demand that still must be paid back.

Of course, this all completely ignores the other side of the equation: “pent-up supply.” The chart below plots new listings in the same manner as the closed sales chart above.

King County SFHs: Pent-Up Supply

Wow, so during the bubble years, supply was actually slightly lower than the baseline (44,581), averaging 4.3% under the 2000-2002 average from 2003-2005. In 2006-2008, supply has been about 11% under average.

Looked at in the same way as the pent-up demand picture, we’re currently sitting on between 15,000-20,000 homes across the county that represent pent-up supply.

So, to sum up: The borrowed demand from the bubble years has still left us with a demand deficit in excess of 20,000 sales, while the lower than usual new inventory of the last few years has built up a pent-up supply of around 15,000 homes.

Admittedly, this is a rather coarse method of investigating the issue of pent-up demand and pent-up supply, but it’s probably the best we can do with the limited hard data that is available. I’m interested to hear what you think about the issue, especially if you’re an agent that has been using “pent-up demand” as a scare tactic to attempt to “get buyers off the fence.”

→ 142 CommentsCategories: Statistics
Tags: , , ,

Local Housing Oversupply Could Disappear by July 2010…

By The Tim on March 19th, 2009 at 12:57 PM · 39 Comments

Good news everyone!

The latest population estimates for King County have been released by the Census Bureau, and at the present rate of population growth, we’ll be able to use up all of our excess housing inventory by July of next year…

if all residential construction across the county completely ceased after July 2008, that is.

Here’s an updated look at our supply and demand situation, indexed to 2000.

King County Housing Supply & Demand

Unfortunately, supply data for 2008 will not be released until August, and in reality construction of new housing units did not come to a complete stop after July 2008, so we will undoubtedly still be sitting on a housing oversupply.

What amazes me is that even in the current economic and lending environment, I am still seeing plenty of in-progress new construction, even including batches of those nasty compact townhomes that have become such a blight on some Seattle neighborhoods.

Running some quick numbers, if the population growth rate holds steady, and the construction of new housing units drops by 25% of the 2000-2007 average, it will take until 2017 before we work through the oversupply.

If new construction drops by 50%, we absorb the oversupply by 2012.

If new construction drops by 75%, we absorb the oversupply by 2010.

Keep in mind, that these figures merely state how long it will take us to get back to roughly the same overall housing vacancy rate we had in 2000, which was by most measures a relatively balanced market. Once we work through this oversupply, it is not likely that double-digit appreciation is going to spring back up out of nowhere, unless new construction has completely halted and stays that way for year after year.

So the big question is, how much has new construction really dropped by in the Seattle area? Are we looking at two years of an oversupplied housing market, or eight?

→ 39 CommentsCategories: Statistics
Tags: , , ,

Regulations “unlikely to contribute more than 17%” of home price

By The Tim on January 5th, 2009 at 7:49 AM · 11 Comments

Some of you may recall back in February last year, when the Seattle Times ran a story about UW professor Theo Eicher’s land use regulations study, with the headline declaring “Rules add $200,000 to Seattle house price.”

Here at Seattle Bubble we had serious questions about the dramatic conclusion in that study, and the methods that led to that conclusion:

…my two biggest problems are that the study alleges a negative influence on home prices due to the mortgage market, and that the time period encompasses only a relatively strong period of growth for the housing market.

Thanks to a reader tip, I came across a more lengthy paper from a group called the American Planning Association that goes into more detail than my post did, and concludes that the effects of regulation were grossly overstated in Eicher’s study. Here’s what they came up with:

The bottom line is that regulations are unlikely to contribute more than 17% of the final price of a typical home, and the impact in many communities may be much less. To use Seattle as a point of comparison, 17% would represent about $68,000 (in current dollars) of a $400,000 home.

You can download a pdf the entire study to read through and decide for yourself whether Mr. Eicher or the APA are closer to the truth of the matter.

→ 11 CommentsCategories: News
Tags: , , , ,