« Open Thread Kent Avenue Bike Lane Issue Reaching Boiling Point »

January 15, 2009

Supply and Demand Falling in Lockstep

supply-and-demand-0109.jpg
As the market has cooled, fewer transactions have occurred at the same time that the number of listings has been falling, according to this graph prepared by Miller Samuel. Presumably the former is influencing the latter, but it's impossible to attribute causality for sure. For a larger view of the chart, click here.




Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7980

Comments

God forbid those two lines start to converge (look it up). We all know what happens to prices if that happens...Economics 101.

Miss Muffet gets sidelined for good, Hoboken stays in Hoboken.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 15, 2009 10:04 AM

I wonder about all the partially-constructed sites in northeastern Clinton Hill/northwestern Bed-Stuy, like the Kodachrome building in Bed-Stuy and others near Home Depot, and the ones on Greene between Classon and Franklin. Will the builders run out of money and they will just stay partially constructed until the market recovers? Maybe it's the same in Greenpoint and the South Slope?

Posted by: rf at January 15, 2009 10:29 AM

Supply drops, good for us brownstone owners.

Posted by: billyboomer at January 15, 2009 11:14 AM

Not sure how much 3 quarters of supply data is worth, but it looks like sales are below 2003 levels (per the bigger chart, 1Q 03 sales look like 3400, while 4Q 08 looks like 1800).

Note as well that different scales (left axis v. right axis) are used for inventory and sales (inventory = 6000, sales = 1800).

Posted by: northsloperenter at January 15, 2009 11:16 AM

Econ 101 says that demand and supply (which is quite different from inventory, of course) converge at the point where price equals marginal cost of production.

The marginal cost of production of a Brooklyn brownstone is the lowest of: (1) construction cost for a new unit that might appeal to the least committed brownstoner, (2) cost to convert an existing rental to owner-occupancy, or (3) cost to renovate a substandard unit to current expectations.

Moreover, Econ 101 predicts that rental values and home prices will converge (if they differ, developers will assiduously work to convert the cheaper form into the more expensive one.

Rental values are about half current asking prices, at least if the Love Lane house is any indication.

If you believe that current sale prices are stable, you should also expect that rents are likely to double in the near future. If you believe that current rents are likely to drop as unemployment rises and incomes drop, then you should anticipate huge reductions in sales prices.

If you reject both these possibilities, you must believe that Econ 101 doesn't apply to NYC for some reason.

Posted by: FinanceGuy at January 15, 2009 11:23 AM

Good catch on axes, northslope renter. But I think you also need to consider that the sales figure is quarterly...so 4Q08 annualized is 7,200, or less than a year's supply of inventory. Of course that assumes sales pace doesn't fall further.

Posted by: arches at January 15, 2009 11:43 AM

"If you reject both these possibilities, you must believe that Econ 101 doesn't apply to NYC for some reason. "

I believe markets are much more inefficient than Econ 101 claims, that "supply and demand" real estate charts provide and incomplete picture of the market, and that the Brooklyn market is not independent from the Queens, Manhattan, North Jersey, Long Island markets.

The "demand" side of the equation (i.e., NYC residents looking for a place to live) may not be decreasing in numbers but their income levels are dropping. People will be moving to small and cheaper spaces in cheaper neighborhoods.

Brooklyn rents will be coming down. Brooklyn sales prices for condos will be coming down.

I don't think I can project direction of on prices of multifamily residences, but I'd guess the direction is down.

Posted by: northsloperenter at January 15, 2009 11:59 AM

Check the situation in Q2 2008: Inventory was twice sales. Is that unusual, normal -- ?

Posted by: mopar at January 15, 2009 12:46 PM

Check this out:

In subprime Brooklyn, cost of renting is equal to cost of owning (when you include all expenses, such as heat, maintenence, insurance, etc.)

In "prime" Brooklyn, cost of owning is twice cost of renting. (Wasder, is this true? In areas such as Fort Greene, it seems they are about equal.)

Consider:

At the same time, it costs about $2000 to rent a 600-square foot one-bedroom apt suitable for a couple in "prime" Brooklyn.

It costs about $1600 to rent an 800-square foot three-bedroom apt suitable for three roommates in subprime Brooklyn.

Math geniuses, what do you make of this?

Posted by: mopar at January 15, 2009 12:55 PM

3 Bedroom Apt at 800 SQF = Shoeboxes

Posted by: ou812 at January 15, 2009 1:00 PM

"Math geniuses, what do you make of this?"

Bad neighborhoods are cheap.

Posted by: northsloperenter at January 15, 2009 1:02 PM

I think maybe ownership and rental prices are already pretty close. Also, for a couple with two incomes, the difference between 1600 and 2000 is not that great, if space is not an issue.

(The three bedroom apts are plenty spacious.)

Posted by: mopar at January 15, 2009 1:27 PM

Isn't this graph typical of market turning points? That is, doesn't a decrease in transactions generally precede a market correction, just before the neediest sellers finally cave and the buyers on sidelines waiting for price decreases finally jump back in?

Posted by: Miss Muffett at January 15, 2009 1:29 PM

QED: The day of the cocky slumlord is over. You know who you are.

Posted by: Whuh at January 15, 2009 1:48 PM

as explained before - sideliners will not see firesales. developers will rent out, sellers who don't need to sell (most sellers) won't. this is not detroit or cleveland.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at January 15, 2009 2:01 PM

"Source: LIBOR, ACRIS"

LIBOR = Long Island Board of Realtors = MSLI.com = Weak coverage of listings (read SUPPLY) in Brooklyn

ACRIS = Automated City Register Information System = Sales (DEMAND) only = No listings (read SUPPLY) at all

I believe the demand curve because it's from ACRIS. The supply curve from a *Long Island Listing Service? Not so much.

*Yeah I know Brooklyn is technically a part of LI but do a "LIBOR" search between $1M and $5M and see how many brownstones come up.

Nice try though (very sneaky).

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at January 15, 2009 2:25 PM

Wasder, is this true? In areas such as Fort Greene, it seems they are about equal.)---Mopar as we know many people on this board consider where I live to be less than prime. But as to the actual factual info here I don't know. I don't think I could rent as much space as I have now for the money I pay but this is not a scientific position.

Posted by: wasder at January 15, 2009 2:31 PM

"Note as well that different scales (left axis v. right axis) are used for inventory and sales (inventory = 6000, sales = 1800)."

Excellent observation. So an 8,000 drop (-80%) from the peak in sales and a 1,000 drop (-25%) in listings since records were taken (NOT from the peak where ever that was). Lockstep? Nice spin.

"The "demand" side of the equation (i.e., NYC residents looking for a place to live)"

Demand = QUALIFIED NYC residents looking for a place to live. Deduct the window shoppers.

"sellers who don't need to sell (most sellers)..."

PURE speculation (based on what?). Do you have the balance sheet of all sellers in front of you?

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at January 15, 2009 2:52 PM

The two lines have already converged. If you redraw the graph so both indexes are equal (3000 = 3000 on both sides, for example) the lines track each other closely all along. Inventory is only slightly higher than sales.

Posted by: mopar at January 15, 2009 3:01 PM

Wasder, what I mean is, take a typical house in "prime" Brooklyn. Isn't the mortgage typically equal to the rents? For example, hypothetically, if a house sells for $1.2 million and has three units, one of which is an owner's duplex, the rents on each two-bedroom apartment would be $3,000/month each. The owner's duplex mortgage payments and costs would total $6,000.

Then again, from what I see on this board, Fort Greene and Park Slope houses sell for $2 million and surely floor-throughs of whatever size there don't rent for more than $3,000? So maybe not.

Posted by: mopar at January 15, 2009 3:07 PM

mopar--my mortgage/taxes are around 5G a month. if I was to rent the whole house out I could get about 6G a month, as far as I can tell. Right now I am renting half of it out and getting about 3500 for it. So I guess that means in my case owning is better than renting but I am not sure.

Posted by: wasder at January 15, 2009 3:20 PM

It depends on how much people put down. My mortgage + taxes is $2,500 and I get $1,200 for the basement apartment. I'm sure if I wanted to rent out my duplex I could get another $2,500 with the two baths, the kitchen and the deck. But my LTV was only 45% when I bought it.

Don't even start a discussion of the opportunity cost of the downpayment. If that were in anything but Treasuries it's be a loss.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at January 15, 2009 3:39 PM

mopar--to clarify based on what DIBS is saying we put down 20%.

Posted by: wasder at January 15, 2009 3:46 PM

Econ 101: "most" (potential) sellers are irrelevant. The price is determined at the margin: the most desperate seller makes a deal with the most spendthrift buyer.

In rational markets, buyers expect to be paid for the risk and hassle of homeowership, so prices drop until it is slightly cheaper to buy than to rent (enough cheaper that investors can make an immediate profit renting, even if they honestly account for their time, opportunity costs and maintenance expenses).

In bubble markets like the one just ending, buyers will pay silly prices because they plan to sell at even sillier prices. Banks become enablers, on the same theory: they don't care if the buyer is overpaying or over-borrowing, because if the borrower can't pay, he/she will just sell to an even sillier buyer. But when the bubble ends, those buyers and those banks rapidly disappear.

In declining markets, the bubble logic can work in reverse: you'd be crazy to pay full value (let alone double value) today when it is going to be cheaper tomorrow. So the market is just as likely to overshoot on the way down as on the way up. At some previous NY bottoms, it cost half as much to buy as to rent.

Transactions are dropping because sellers are attempting to demand more than the market clearing price. In effect, we have a sellers' cartel. However, Econ 101 predicts that cartels usually fail. Especially when the only coordinator and enforcer of the cartel is real estate agents.

Sale price drops are now inevitable unless Obama decides to hand the entire stimulus package, no strings attached, to Manhattan investment bankers.

If you are willing to pay double fair value based on current rents -- you should first ask yourself whether your seller is really the best object of your charity. Wouldn't it be better to just give away half your money to someone deserving, and then wait 6 months to buy?

Posted by: FinanceGuy at January 15, 2009 4:11 PM

DIBS, if you calculate your opportunity cost as the S&P500's returns for the last year, you made a fortune on your house.

Congratulations! At that rate, you'll be even richer than my girlfriend got shopping at the Bloomingdale's 50% off sale.
If she had only spent a bit more, she'd have saved so much I could retire right now.

Posted by: FinanceGuy at January 15, 2009 4:24 PM

Bit of a non sequitor, FG. How would you calculate DIBS's opportunity cost? Seems he's paying way less on his living space than a comparable rental and investment alternatives for the principle he put in would have done worse over the same period. You got a different way of looking at it?

Posted by: slopefarm at January 15, 2009 4:46 PM

"mopar--my mortgage/taxes are around 5G a month. if I was to rent the whole house out I could get about 6G a month, as far as I can tell."

Exactly! So at least in your case, rents are pretty much the same as ownership costs. Let's assume 20 percent down in general. DIBS, you do have a sweet deal, but not everyone can put down so much. I guess those who can explain the high prices in Fort Greene and Brooklyn Heights.

Well, I guess we all already knew that!

Posted by: mopar at January 15, 2009 5:34 PM

finance guy - wtf was that book of babble. hopefully you're still in school.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at January 15, 2009 8:03 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions