These falsifiers of reality paint a distorted picture of reality, so it is difficult for ordinary people who are not immersed in a hellish cauldron to understand what is really happening. By happy coincidence, census unbanned access to their site at night, but then they were banned again, but in that short period of time they managed to clarify the picture somewhat.
Now in the US a little over 30% of the total housing stock is leased. This is lower than the level observed in the period from 1965 to 1995 (32.2%), but much higher than it was before the mortgage crisis. The trend has changed dramatically since mid-2007, when a record low ratio was recorded – about 27%. Prior to this, for 12 years (from 1995 to 2007) the number of rental houses has decreased.
All this took place against the background of a sharp increase in the share of houses owned for living – the result of the rapid development of mortgage lending and housing affordability (90-2006), including through subprime mortgages. Now they have fallen to historic lows – some of the houses are put up for rent, and some are suspended.
But at the beginning of the 21st century, the national idea of mortgage speculation began to emerge. Buying a house for resale. Real estate has become an investment product, both for owners through sale at higher prices, and for lenders in order to further securitize loans and distribute risks throughout the system.
Mortgage trusts, investment funds and smaller speculators bought up entire cities for resale. The further history of this creative is known. But on the graph, this is shown as a decrease in the number of vacant housing in the period from 2007 to 2013.
Why is the decline not so significant?This is due to the large amount of real estate that was put up by banks for sale with bankrupt borrowers.
The housing stock is estimated at 132 million homes. In this regard, it is interesting to follow the dynamics of the population and the growth of the housing stock. It takes the entire population of the United States.
In general, a high correlation.
Now the number of residents per house.
Surprisingly, the number of residents per house does not change for 25 years.
But it’s not surprising, but it’s quite logical that the development of MBS products, sub-prime loans and other amateur activities began in the 90-ies, which made it possible to give loans to impoverished Latinos who had just arrived from Mexico, unemployed blacks, and simply gopniki who had pledge a can of beer and chupa chups. All for the realization of the American dream! ) Although most of the Latinos and blacks usually live in multi-family homes.
Actually, in conditions of market saturation and high housing security, it was the liberalization of mortgage lending with soft credit standards that allowed real estate to continue to expand for almost 15 years from the 90s to 2006. When the indigenous population, the middle class, or more settled, in order to support the demand for new housing it was necessary to give the opportunity to buy houses for the poor – and that was how a sub-prime arose.
On that chart, it is clear why the sub-prime arose from the 90s – to support the growth of the construction market and mortgage lending during the saturation period. It also becomes clear from the presented information that in real conditions the limit of housing supply for the economy is formed with 2.33 inhabitants per house.
And from this the main conclusion. In the current environment, the growth of loans and construction can only be with a growing population. Ok, is the construction of new homes growing (data for August 2013)?
Not really, just say so. Rebound dead cats, not even serious.
The current completed construction of new homes is largely a replacement for the retiring housing, i.e. either the old and the old, or that which is being demolished for various reasons. For further expansion of the market is simply not necessary.
Expansion can occur for many reasons
1. Reduced market overstocking (reduced supply), which results in a drop in the number of vacant homes with a growing population. The only realistic trigger, but which has significant inertia and is implemented with large lags over many years.
2. Growth in investment demand. Buying a property as an investment asset. Relevant only at the time of rising prices in the psychology of “sustainable uptrend”, i.e. when investors are confident that price increases are long-term, stable and constant.
3. Homes for beggars. Return to the practice of sub-prime lending. That is still limited by banks, given the sad experience of past years.
4. Growth in housing provision per person The
second and third factors worked from the mid-90s to 2006. 4 factor worked in the period from the 40s to 1985. And what remains now? Only the first factor.
Once again on the issue of security.
Now the average house sold has an area of 45% more than 40-50 years ago.
To add to this fact that the number of inhabitants per house has decreased by almost 30%, it follows from this that the average family per person has up to 90% more than 40-50 years ago and further expansion loses its meaning . Under 100 meters per person is it a lot or a little? )) In the table, to be converted into square meters, then divided by 10.7.
In general, at the rate of about 6-8% of housing is bought for cash in the United States, and we are talking about expensive housing, including premium class, which accounts for up to 80% all purchases per cache. As a result, the bulk – the average house buys either for borrowed money, or for all sorts of government programs, or relocation, and so on.
Now the share of purchases for cash has increased in percentage terms from 6-8% to 11-12%, but absolute purchases have almost halved from 116 thousand houses to 53.
If these figures in the US are not completely fools, then they should perfectly understand that the expectations of the return of the US real estate market to the rapid expansion trajectory are highly unrealistic due to the high level of housing. And this factor began to act not in 2006, but in the early 80s. It was simply eliminated by inflating the mortgage pooch and the escalation of speculative insanity + too soft issuance standards to anyone who got it – for which they paid.
No, and there will not be a return on the pace of 1600-2000 thousand houses per year, no matter what they say and what QE they would not run.Now we are talking about the replacement rate, in other words, the support of the existing infrastructure ( building as much as demolishing ) with a slight increase in housing stock due to population growth.