Optimal time to buy?

edited July 2007 in Seattle Real Estate
What's your prediction for the optimal time to buy in Seattle? I've seen a lot of posts about when people personally plan to buy, but this is a different question. When is the best time to buy to have the most money in your pocket to pay things that matter other than housing? Like education, health care, or wild vacations.

My guess is 2014 at the earliest, and I will explain my reasoning as best as I can.

First, I assume it takes a long time for a real estate market to dip and turn flat. Check out how long it took in this graph posted by one of Seattle Bubble's reigning real estate gurus:
deejayoh wrote:
longlifeofahousingdowntpd3.gif

The question for me when I look at that graph: would a person have been smarter (and richer in the long run) buying a home in 1990? Or to rent and then buy later in 1996 or 1997?

A lot of people here might say 1990. Possibly because they're sick of renting. Possibly because they think the economy here is so strong, that any downturn here will be short-lived. This may be right.

I'm going to say 1997 and with current price/rent ratios so out of whack, the argument for waiting in the future is even stronger.

If I run the numbers for a median priced home assuming the market is flat as it was from 1990 to 1996, it looks to me like you would save somewhere between $10 to $40 K a year by renting to 2014. (Using the NY TIMES rent/own calculator, tweaking the numbers).

It's also relevant for buyers to consider the profile of a real estate decline. Home owners are in denial when the market downturns as we've seen reported recently about the national mood. There's confidence in real estate despite the downturn. You can say people are crazy, but the point is it can take years for owners to realize it's a buyers market. Only at that point do buyers have a lot of bargaining power.

I'm sure the financial gurus on this blog will give me some advice...what's your prediction for the optimal time to buy?

Comments

  • I'll go out on a limb and say that the optimal time to buy is when the only kinds of loans available require 20% down, and it is virtually impossible to get an exotic mortgage (e.g. negative amortization, 100% interest, 100% finance, etc). We will have reached bottom when this happens.

    Of course, this is not to say that people should wait till the absolute bottom to buy a home. There are some factors of enjoyment that come from owning a home you live in. If you can afford a home (i.e. without stretching your finances), and you find a place you like, then go ahead and buy it.

    But if you want to know the "optimal" time to buy, to get the lowest price, then my recommendation to wait until credit standards are super-tight would be a good indicator.
  • sniglet wrote:
    I'll go out on a limb and say that the optimal time to buy is when the only kinds of loans available require 20% down, and it is virtually impossible to get an exotic mortgage (e.g. negative amortization, 100% interest, 100% finance, etc). We will have reached bottom when this happens.

    Of course, this is not to say that people should wait till the absolute bottom to buy a home. There are some factors of enjoyment that come from owning a home you live in. If you can afford a home (i.e. without stretching your finances), and you find a place you like, then go ahead and buy it.

    But if you want to know the "optimal" time to buy, to get the lowest price, then my recommendation to wait until credit standards are super-tight would be a good indicator.

    I doubt you'll see 20% required. But 10% required seems to be right around the corner.

    But let's go with the 20% down requirement scenario. The moment that happens will also not be the ideal time to buy. Give it 9 months after that day, then go house shopping and low-ball every house you like. By that time, several sellers will be so desperate they might actually LOWER THE FREAKING PRICE.
  • Except you aren't taking into account that with current price/rent ratios most people can afford a higher quality of life today by renting.
    sniglet wrote:
    Of course, this is not to say that people should wait till the absolute bottom to buy a home. There are some factors of enjoyment that come from owning a home you live in. If you can afford a home (i.e. without stretching your finances), and you find a place you like, then go ahead and buy it.
  • I don't think it's ever a "bad" time to buy a home to live in if you 1) like the house and 2) you can get it at an affordable price. Even today with some sellers still trying to hold the line on prices there are (relative) bargains to be had, particularly from more experienced investors/developers who understand how markets work (and have inventory to unload). If the question is really "when will be the next time that a real estate purchase will give outsized appreciation/returns compared to other investments over a 5 year period", I'd say not for a long time--a decade or more probably, since I think the credit bubble moved forward about that many years worth of income-growth-based appreciation, and the global currency/balance of trade/federal debt pressures seem likely to keep interest rates somewhat higher for quite a while.
  • I will buy when we return to an ownership premium of 1.2x rent. When I bought a place in '98, this was the case. Most of the houses I see advertised today that rent for $1600/month would cost anywhere from $4000 to $4500/month to own. IMO, one has to be a fool to put the ownership premium at 3x rent.

    My wild guess is 2011.
  • A cautionary note on interpeting that chart....

    I have learned quite a bit about the CS index since I posted this. This chart is based on the 10-city Case-Shiller index which includes Boston, Chicago, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, and Washington DC.

    Of those cities - really only the California markets had any meaningful downturn that extended beyond 1993. But because of the way the index is constructed (markets are weighted based on the total value of housing in the market) those markets - particularly LA - are outsized in their impact on the overall index. Also - I am not sure California is really 30% of the US market (3 of 10). Maybe it is by value, but a weighting based on unit volume is probably a more appropriate way to come up with an index for an analysis like this. Using market value is like talking about "average price" instead of median. It works for the financial hedging these indexes are designed for, but not for applying the implications to a specific home.

    I think the 20 city index weighted by number of homes would have told a very different story, showing a downturn that was probably on average much shorter.
  • Femto:

    Yeah that is the question, although I didn't limit it to a 5 year period.

    When I read these comments I realize the old American Dream about owning your own home is officially over. Long live the renters' reality of a better place to live and more cash at the end of the day!

    Almost anyone who currently owns their own home in the Puget Sound area could have a higher quality place to live (and more money in their pocket at the end of the day) if they sold it and started renting. That's unprecedented. It's crazy, but it's reality.

    So why not rent for 3 years, 5 years, 15 years or 30 years unless the rent/price ratio changes? If someone wants to own my house and rent it to me at a discount, I'll take that deal.

    Plus, when the refrigerator breaks I will make a phone call, crack open a beer; and watch the Mariners beat the Blue Jays.
    femto wrote:
    If the question is really "when will be the next time that a real estate purchase will give outsized appreciation/returns compared to other investments over a 5 year period."
Sign In or Register to comment.