Big Signs of Bubble in San Francisco

Big Signs of Bubble in San Francisco

Flipper/Rehabber · Emeryville, CA · Member since 2015 · 158 posts · 124 votes

Robert Campbell, who’s a well-regarded real estate trend-spotter based out of Southern California, has finally spoken on the bubble that’s formed in San Francisco. In his semi-monthly newsletter, he’s identified a few areas of the country as bubbly, but there is one that has become ridiculously over-priced: San Francisco.

I won’t spoil the details in his “Campbell Real Estate Timing Letter”, but I’ll pull out one public statistic from the Case-Shiller Index, and expand deeper on it. At this point in time, the Bay Area metro (five counties) has grown 82.3% over the last 4 years, while the city of San Francisco has gone up almost 100%. Over that same period of time, the country as a whole has increased approximately 29%.

That’s crazy! And completely unsustainable. Right now the Bay Area has an unemployment rate of 3.4%. That’s about as low as a major metro can get. Mortgage rates are .1% away from historic lows (thanks Brexit?). In other words, things are as good as they can possibly get economically. There's nowhere to go but down.

Dig into the employment data found here, and there are some other worrying signs. Tech employment in San Francisco (look under Computer Systems Design & Related Services) hasn’t risen over the past three months. There were big year-over-year gains, but hiring seems to have dropped off as venture capital has cooled. San Jose and Oakland show similar slow growth in recent months.

So what’s the moral of the story? Take care of your money ladies & gentlemen, and invest with caution. 

2Reply
38 views

Most Popular Reply

Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
10y

Hi Juan,

Thanks for the heads up.  Who is this economist? Does he specialize in real estate trend or other economics aspects too?  Do you know if he invests in real estate?  How much does he charge for his semi-monthly newsletters?  

How long have you subscribed to his newsletter?  Did he really call the bottom in April 2010?  If that's the case, he's ahead of a couple of respected economists.  How have his calls been based on your experience?

@J. Martin, look what I found?  You have a competitor here.  LOL!

See this reply in the discussion

24 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Dylan VargasPro Member
    Rental Property Investor · Chico, CA · Member since 2016 · 633 posts · 336 votes
    10y

    @Juan Diaz...this is not San Francisco that I speak of but, I am seeing some reduced price listings in Northern California (North of Sacramento). Seeing a few more each day. Makes you wonder!

  • Oakland, CA · Member since 2016 · 26 posts · 9 votes
    10y

    Thanks for looking out Juan! 

  • Engineer · San Jose, CA · Member since 2016 · 62 posts · 9 votes
    10y

    Hello Juan Diaz,

    Looks like we're threading into the next phase of unknown threshold of lower expectations.

    Below is my 2 cents of analysis (+/- 1 look up)

    Look up the two parabolic lines converging at 1, -1, (assumed to be x year, could be 2016-17, one assumed to continually hypermarket, the other losing resistance, hence at lower pace, the other is extremely serious case where it reaches its peak 1 year and a half and slowly dipping down for several years, (possible 5-8 years or more), then slowly ripples back but not much. I'm looking at news in both the pacific flank and the atlantic flank. Tensions are high with the 3 major powers. All three are competing to the lowest economic and financial ideology. 

    (Disclaimer: This is an analytical interpretation based from what I see and had lumped those data into simple mathematical model in limits. The other model I planned in using is to treat some data similar to an algorithm, the use of Newton's method of approximations of differences. The third model I'd be looking at is the stochastic method to compare, contrast, or predict/forecast. So, this illustration can not be believed and should in no way be the basis for your decision to either enter or exit in the real estate investment).

  • Rental Property Investor · Durham, NC · Member since 2016 · 354 posts · 288 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Juan Diaz:

    Robert Campbell, who’s a well-regarded real estate trend-spotter based out of Southern California, has finally spoken on the bubble that’s formed in San Francisco. In his semi-monthly newsletter, he’s identified a few areas of the country as bubbly, but there is one that has become ridiculously over-priced: San Francisco.

    I won’t spoil the details in his “Campbell Real Estate Timing Letter”, but I’ll pull out one public statistic from the Case-Shiller Index, and expand deeper on it. At this point in time, the Bay Area metro (five counties) has grown 82.3% over the last 4 years, while the city of San Francisco has gone up almost 100%. Over that same period of time, the country as a whole has increased approximately 29%.

    That’s crazy! And completely unsustainable. Right now the Bay Area has an unemployment rate of 3.4%. That’s about as low as a major metro can get. Mortgage rates are .1% away from historic lows (thanks Brexit?). In other words, things are as good as they can possibly get economically. There's nowhere to go but down.

    Dig into the employment data found here, and there are some other worrying signs. Tech employment in San Francisco (look under Computer Systems Design & Related Services) hasn’t risen over the past three months. There were big year-over-year gains, but hiring seems to have dropped off as venture capital has cooled. San Jose and Oakland show similar slow growth in recent months.

    So what’s the moral of the story? Take care of your money ladies & gentlemen, and invest with caution. 

    This topic has come up a few times over the last several months. In the first thread I commented on, I took some flak for saying I was sure we're headed for a substantial correction, but in the most recent one it seemed that at least some were in agreement.

    Layoffs are already happening in tech, but so far they're kinda flying under the radar. I've also seen a few houses sell recently in Berkeley/Oakland for substantially (~10%) less than the comps from 3 months ago would've indicated.

    My guess is we'll stall out for a bit, then get some turmoil in tech, then a correction in real estate. I'm already hearing that tech folks across the board are getting nervous about layoffs. My wife and several friends work in the industry.

  • Member since 2016 · 13k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    10y

    My opinion is that any area that has appreciation on real estate growing abnormally faster than the annual cost of living index will ultimately crash. Who knows when?

    But I also believe the great quake will slide California into the ocean. 

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Emeryville, CA · Member since 2015 · 158 posts · 124 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Abe Gonzales:

    Hello Juan Diaz,

    Looks like we're threading into the next phase of unknown threshold of lower expectations.

    Below is my 2 cents of analysis (+/- 1 look up)

    Look up the two parabolic lines converging at 1, -1, (assumed to be x year, could be 2016-17, one assumed to continually hypermarket, the other losing resistance, hence at lower pace, the other is extremely serious case where it reaches its peak 1 year and a half and slowly dipping down for several years, (possible 5-8 years or more), then slowly ripples back but not much. I'm looking at news in both the pacific flank and the atlantic flank. Tensions are high with the 3 major powers. All three are competing to the lowest economic and financial ideology. 

    (Disclaimer: This is an analytical interpretation based from what I see and had lumped those data into simple mathematical model in limits. The other model I planned in using is to treat some data similar to an algorithm, the use of Newton's method of approximations of differences. The third model I'd be looking at is the stochastic method to compare, contrast, or predict/forecast. So, this illustration can not be believed and should in no way be the basis for your decision to either enter or exit in the real estate investment).

     I'm sure that if you had any intention of your post in any way being serious about mathematics behind real estate investing, you wouldn't have bothered putting together something that's so clearly made up/opaque.

    If you're running a model, by all means, share the details about inputs to the model.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Emeryville, CA · Member since 2015 · 158 posts · 124 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Thomas S.:

    My opinion is that any area that has appreciation on real estate growing abnormally faster than the annual cost of living index will ultimately crash. Who knows when?

    But I also believe the great quake will slide California into the ocean. 

     There are good reasons for real estate to appreciate faster than cost of living in ways that are in some way sustainable. If median incomes increase, house prices will go up sustainably. If there are tons of people moving in, house prices will rise because newer stock is being built, pushing average price up. If a metro hits its outer bounds of expansion (physical barriers or greenbelt) then it can have sustained above-CLI increases

  • Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    10y

    Hi Juan,

    Thanks for the heads up.  Who is this economist? Does he specialize in real estate trend or other economics aspects too?  Do you know if he invests in real estate?  How much does he charge for his semi-monthly newsletters?  

    How long have you subscribed to his newsletter?  Did he really call the bottom in April 2010?  If that's the case, he's ahead of a couple of respected economists.  How have his calls been based on your experience?

    @J. Martin, look what I found?  You have a competitor here.  LOL!

  • Engineer · San Jose, CA · Member since 2016 · 62 posts · 9 votes
    10y

    @Juan Diaz,

    I lumped categorical implications based on capital movement, and the constraint of otherwise limits in the principle based from mainstream economics; land, money, labor, and commodities, where money knows no border yet labor is monetized as a commodity just like the intrinsic value of a precious metal, or the value of crops. Or, to be strait about it, as it appears, only land and money, the rest are either sitting and waiting to be taken or not to be taken by money disguised as a crop, labor, real estate, or precious metals. I view money being the medium of exchange and wirelessly interconnected all across the vast continents due to the fact that it is made up of air, hence, air bubbles can pop up. I further divide these wireless interconnectivity between China, USA, and Russia, in the order, because the rest of the nations either belonged to all three or combination of any one or two or three. I likened real estate similar to an electric trolley hanging and traveling across predetermined destination, that is hanging over a medium, which is an electrical cable. Just like the wireless connection, the medium being air, money travels and knows no borders. Whereas, the real estate, is local, and that locality in this instance, is the SF Bay area.

    So, China drops borrowing rates, so the Feds has no option (except War), but to drop if not maintain the same low rates. Why? Because China wants to maintain if not continue the mercantilist principle of economics - more export more for the better on all other nations that she has close economic ties with. In multiple economic fronts, using dollar devaluation to make export cheaper and to cut borrowing rates, extended arm through globalization, no longer works for the USA to gain both earned and unearned income or at least have little or no effects to gain what used to be always working. Oil became the dominant tool in maintaining the USA's standard of living. But this now is also being direct in competition with Russia. So, money, as the medium of exchange, with oil (major and dominant commodity) is now wirelessly disconnected in some portions of the continent.

    So, these events, lumping together, I can now call as a function of the sum of all and major events (surrounding the medium of exchange - money). The land, specific to SF Bay area, can be summed as the extreme of hyper speculative formula where land value is calculated broadly to the rate its improvement is calculated that no single formula can be used to measure its true value. This principle of land valuation tied to its improvement using a simple formula (as the basis), that is the ratio of the dollar depreciation per square footage as one indicator to determine what is speculative and what is not, can then be used for property taxation basis. Although, this would differ from county to county, but the indicator assumed that influences in the frequency and speed of transactions between buyer and seller to be the fundamental basis of property taxation based from speculative land valuation formula.  This then can be assigned a rate in the equation.

    The third portion that represented a wilting nature graph, based in speculative RE market, assumed that   property prices reached the peak and slowly find its true value by bottoming down before it ripples back up into more stability where I call the local government to be the catalyst in lieu of private sector job losses. 

    A good indicator of this action is the decision by the local governments to put a brake or limits of rental price a rental owner can impose to renter (to limit speculation until wages catch up). Will this work in the long term basis? My only two cents is, no it is not going to work in the long term. Unless the basis formula for land value is determined, so that the more you improve in your land the lower is your property tax, the more and stable jobs will become, the more the economy is sustainable. I would refer the model Hong Kong has adopted with regard to land valuation and its formula, one of the city that continually sustained its economic development for the longest period.

  • Rental Property Investor · Durham, NC · Member since 2016 · 354 posts · 288 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Abe Gonzales:

    @Juan Diaz,

    I lumped categorical implications based on capital movement, and the constraint of otherwise limits in the principle based from mainstream economics; land, money, labor, and commodities, where money knows no border yet labor is monetized as a commodity just like the intrinsic value of a precious metal, or the value of crops. Or, to be strait about it, as it appears, only land and money, the rest are either sitting and waiting to be taken or not to be taken by money disguised as a crop, labor, real estate, or precious metals. I view money being the medium of exchange and wirelessly interconnected all across the vast continents due to the fact that it is made up of air, hence, air bubbles can pop up. I further divide these wireless interconnectivity between China, USA, and Russia, in the order, because the rest of the nations either belonged to all three or combination of any one or two or three. I likened real estate similar to an electric trolley hanging and traveling across predetermined destination, that is hanging over a medium, which is an electrical cable. Just like the wireless connection, the medium being air, money travels and knows no borders. Whereas, the real estate, is local, and that locality in this instance, is the SF Bay area.

    So, China drops borrowing rates, so the Feds has no option (except War), but to drop if not maintain the same low rates. Why? Because China wants to maintain if not continue the mercantilist principle of economics - more export more for the better on all other nations that she has close economic ties with. In multiple economic fronts, using dollar devaluation to make export cheaper and to cut borrowing rates, extended arm through globalization, no longer works for the USA to gain both earned and unearned income or at least have little or no effects to gain what used to be always working. Oil became the dominant tool in maintaining the USA's standard of living. But this now is also being direct in competition with Russia. So, money, as the medium of exchange, with oil (major and dominant commodity) is now wirelessly disconnected in some portions of the continent.

    So, these events, lumping together, I can now call as a function of the sum of all and major events (surrounding the medium of exchange - money). The land, specific to SF Bay area, can be summed as the extreme of hyper speculative formula where land value is calculated broadly to the rate its improvement is calculated that no single formula can be used to measure its true value. This principle of land valuation tied to its improvement using a simple formula (as the basis), that is the ratio of the dollar depreciation per square footage as one indicator to determine what is speculative and what is not, can then be used for property taxation basis. Although, this would differ from county to county, but the indicator assumed that influences in the frequency and speed of transactions between buyer and seller to be the fundamental basis of property taxation based from speculative land valuation formula.  This then can be assigned a rate in the equation.

    The third portion that represented a wilting nature graph, based in speculative RE market, assumed that   property prices reached the peak and slowly find its true value by bottoming down before it ripples back up into more stability where I call the local government to be the catalyst in lieu of private sector job losses. 

    A good indicator of this action is the decision by the local governments to put a brake or limits of rental price a rental owner can impose to renter (to limit speculation until wages catch up). Will this work in the long term basis? My only two cents is, no it is not going to work in the long term. Unless the basis formula for land value is determined, so that the more you improve in your land the lower is your property tax, the more and stable jobs will become, the more the economy is sustainable. I would refer the model Hong Kong has adopted with regard to land valuation and its formula, one of the city that continually sustained its economic development for the longest period.

     Huh? I think that was English but I didn't understand any of it.

  • Rental Property Investor · Hailey, ID · Member since 2015 · 218 posts · 143 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Juan Diaz:

    Robert Campbell, who’s a well-regarded real estate trend-spotter based out of Southern California, has finally spoken on the bubble that’s formed in San Francisco. In his semi-monthly newsletter, he’s identified a few areas of the country as bubbly, but there is one that has become ridiculously over-priced: San Francisco.

    I won’t spoil the details in his “Campbell Real Estate Timing Letter”, but I’ll pull out one public statistic from the Case-Shiller Index, and expand deeper on it. At this point in time, the Bay Area metro (five counties) has grown 82.3% over the last 4 years, while the city of San Francisco has gone up almost 100%. Over that same period of time, the country as a whole has increased approximately 29%.

    That’s crazy! And completely unsustainable. Right now the Bay Area has an unemployment rate of 3.4%. That’s about as low as a major metro can get. Mortgage rates are .1% away from historic lows (thanks Brexit?). In other words, things are as good as they can possibly get economically. There's nowhere to go but down.

    Dig into the employment data found here, and there are some other worrying signs. Tech employment in San Francisco (look under Computer Systems Design & Related Services) hasn’t risen over the past three months. There were big year-over-year gains, but hiring seems to have dropped off as venture capital has cooled. San Jose and Oakland show similar slow growth in recent months.

    So what’s the moral of the story? Take care of your money ladies & gentlemen, and invest with caution. 

    It's not the craziest leap to think that the Bay Area is in a bubble. Finite land, more money than God and tons of speculation.

    I'm a perma-bear, but I'm always skeptical when people are pushing info for money. $130/year for Campbell's newsletter is actually pretty cheap by guru standards, but nonetheless, it's informative speculation at best.

    Others have brought it up as well.

    Unless you own property in that area, you have zero to lose and everything to gain. 

    Just get your cash ready and suck up the properties if it happens. 

  • Rental Property Investor · Sacramento, CA · Member since 2016 · 267 posts · 214 votes
    10y

    @Juan Diaz I really like your analysis and enjoy your input. I agree that there are plenty of ways for areas to sustainably appreciate, given that fundamentals are changing. The only thing I might mention though, is that looking at the amount of homes being built is only half of the equation. Understanding the balance between the supply and demand requires looking at the net absorption rate to see whether or not demand is outpacing the supply coming online. We could very well have situations where new housing is being built but prices are falling rapidly (just like condo developments towards the end of real estate cycles).

    As for the rest of this thread, I don't see San Francisco exploding. The hangover of 2008 has caused people to recreate their perceived norms of market cycles. Tech is not going anywhere, San Francisco thrives on it, and a slowdown of job creation or even layoffs is much different than the tech boom in the early 2000s. I see a cooling of the market as the cycle ages, but a fundamental meltdown and credit crunch such as what we saw in 2008 doesn't seem plausible. I believe we will see compressed cap rates unravel as less asset-rich buyers are in the market, as well as the psychology of the average consumer become more pessimistic in response to a bearish environment in our American equities markets. The two together should cause the market to cease bidding wars and speculative purchases. Similar to every other cycle, a reversion to the mean will take place and fundamental value purchases will return.

    That being said, I'm hoping that the real estate market gets decimated so I can snap up some good deals!

    Kenneth R. Reimer

  • Engineer · Carlsbad/San Diego · Member since 2014 · 285 posts · 97 votes
    10y

    @Chris May Where are you seeing the layoffs, which companies? Software or hardware? Just curious. 

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Emeryville, CA · Member since 2015 · 158 posts · 124 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Kenneth Reimer:

    @Juan Diaz I really like your analysis and enjoy your input. I agree that there are plenty of ways for areas to sustainably appreciate, given that fundamentals are changing. The only thing I might mention though, is that looking at the amount of homes being built is only half of the equation. Understanding the balance between the supply and demand requires looking at the net absorption rate to see whether or not demand is outpacing the supply coming online. We could very well have situations where new housing is being built but prices are falling rapidly (just like condo developments towards the end of real estate cycles).

    As for the rest of this thread, I don't see San Francisco exploding. The hangover of 2008 has caused people to recreate their perceived norms of market cycles. Tech is not going anywhere, San Francisco thrives on it, and a slowdown of job creation or even layoffs is much different than the tech boom in the early 2000s. I see a cooling of the market as the cycle ages, but a fundamental meltdown and credit crunch such as what we saw in 2008 doesn't seem plausible. I believe we will see compressed cap rates unravel as less asset-rich buyers are in the market, as well as the psychology of the average consumer become more pessimistic in response to a bearish environment in our American equities markets. The two together should cause the market to cease bidding wars and speculative purchases. Similar to every other cycle, a reversion to the mean will take place and fundamental value purchases will return.

    That being said, I'm hoping that the real estate market gets decimated so I can snap up some good deals!

    Kenneth R. Reimer

     I think the moral of informed real estate investing is, the better-contextualized your data, the better results you'll get.

    As far as a housing crunch, I doubt we'll see anything as bad as 2008. 2008 was a once-in-a-lifetime downturn. I also doubt that the inevitable tech bust will be as bad the early-2000s. That said, the valuations in Bay Area tech companies have been ridiculously inflated of late. There are more Theranos' than Googles out there, and it seems like venture capital has drawn back a little bit, which seems to be leading to a freeze on hiring in startups. That's the kind of thing that has a chilling downstream effect on the tech economy, and from there the housing market. 

    House prices, adjusted for inflation, actually peaked in San Jose around 2000 (maybe higher now since I last did analysis approx. 9 months ago). Because of that, I'm very leery of any tech bust. 

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Emeryville, CA · Member since 2015 · 158 posts · 124 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    Hi Juan,

    Thanks for the heads up.  Who is this economist? Does he specialize in real estate trend or other economics aspects too?  Do you know if he invests in real estate?  How much does he charge for his semi-monthly newsletters?  

    How long have you subscribed to his newsletter?  Did he really call the bottom in April 2010?  If that's the case, he's ahead of a couple of respected economists.  How have his calls been based on your experience?

    @J. Martin, look what I found?  You have a competitor here.  LOL!

     He runs a site www.realestatetiming.com, you can get more info there. He called the peak around 2006-2008. I didn't want to give away the content of the newsletter that he's making his $$$ on, but as John Maynard Keynes once said (paraphrased): "You know the market is crazy, but you don't know when it will correct itself". He goes into detail on his methodology in the newsletter, but again, I don't want to be kicked off of here for posting copyrighted materials. It's essentially an evaluation of the housing market's performance relative to overall US housing market in the form of the Case-Schiller index. I think he's $130 for a year of his newsletters. We've been a subscriber since 2004.

    3.5% mortgage rates if anything will help keep up this crazy appreciation before things start falling back to earth in the Bay. I'm watching tech employment and mortgage rates like a hawk. If those start going up, watch out.

  • Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    10y

    @Juan Diaz,

    I don't think I'm asking you to give anything away. I'm just asking for some PAST confirmations to verify if this economist is legit. The reason I ask if he invests in real estate to gauge his involvement in the housing market as RE is local. Is there a reason why we should listen to this economist over Bruce Norris, who not only considered the oracle of RE for CA, but he practices it day in and day out? To me Bruce likely has an edge over this economist wouldn't you say?

    If you could confirm that he really called the bottom in April 2010, it gives him credibility rather than giving away any secrets. As far as I know, Bruce put together an "All In or Fold" seminar in 2011, and told his investors to go all in while Bill McBride of Calculated Risk called the bottom of the housing market in Feb 2012. Robert Shiller has been bearish the entire time. This is the first time I've heard someone called the bottom of the housing market before Bruce and Bill.

  • Real Estate Investment Attorney · Kingsville, MD · Member since 2016 · 643 posts · 408 votes
    10y

    As I have said numerous times here, if/when Trump wins in November the media will bring out the recession word so fast your head will spin. The bubble will pop quickly as new buyers will become concerned bout all the negativity in the news. Sell your retail holdings in the next few months. Don't wait until Spring.

  • Rental Property Investor · San Francisco, CA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    I think Campbell just has a schitck, a pervasively bearish one, that he likes to peddle for $130/year, to make nervous investors feel better about themselves. This thing about San Francisco being in a massive bubble is not well thought out and quite silly. Almost everyone here agrees that when we have a correction in the future, it will be milder than 2008. Most of SF fell 10-20% 2008-2010. And then it went up almost 100% from 2011-now. So it corrects 10% in the next year or two, Big whoop. Do I care?  Answer: no. I'm still up 90%.

  • Rental Property Investor · Durham, NC · Member since 2016 · 354 posts · 288 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Amit M.:

    I think Campbell just has a schitck, a pervasively bearish one, that he likes to peddle for $130/year, to make nervous investors feel better about themselves. This thing about San Francisco being in a massive bubble is not well thought out and quite silly. Almost everyone here agrees that when we have a correction in the future, it will be milder than 2008. Most of SF fell 10-20% 2008-2010. And then it went up almost 100% from 2011-now. So it corrects 10% in the next year or two, Big whoop. Do I care?  Answer: no. I'm still up 90%.

     Amit - What are you basing that 10-20% decline on? The Case-Shiller index shows 45% decline in SF peak to trough.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SFXRSA

  • Rental Property Investor · San Francisco, CA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    @Chris May case Schiller is not looking at the city of San Francisco. It includes alameda county (which dropped 40% in many places) and San Mateo county. I'm talking about the city specifically. Except for the southeast neighborhoods, most of SF fell 10-20%. Look at paragons stats which bear this out. 

  • Rental Property Investor · Durham, NC · Member since 2016 · 354 posts · 288 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Amit M.:

    @Chris May case Schiller is not looking at the city of San Francisco. It includes alameda county (which dropped 40% in many places) and San Mateo county. I'm talking about the city specifically. Except for the southeast neighborhoods, most of SF fell 10-20%. Look at paragons stats which bear this out. 

    Would you mind posting a link? The best data I could find was a graph that showed a decline somewhere in the 22% range. If you have a link to the actual data I'd be interested in seeing that.

  • Rental Property Investor · Durham, NC · Member since 2016 · 354 posts · 288 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Hersh M.:

    @Chris May Where are you seeing the layoffs, which companies? Software or hardware? Just curious. 

     The people I know work in software. 

  • Rental Property Investor · San Francisco, CA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    This report has a lot of data. http://paragon-re.com/3_Recessions_2_Bubbles_and_a...

    Note that it looks at all of SF.  When I say -10-20% I'm talking about specific, more central or prime neighborhoods.  The SE quadrant of SF fell 30-40%, so it skews the average down.  

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Emeryville, CA · Member since 2015 · 158 posts · 124 votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    @Juan Diaz,

    I don't think I'm asking you to give anything away. I'm just asking for some PAST confirmations to verify if this economist is legit. The reason I ask if he invests in real estate to gauge his involvement in the housing market as RE is local. Is there a reason why we should listen to this economist over Bruce Norris, who not only considered the oracle of RE for CA, but he practices it day in and day out? To me Bruce likely has an edge over this economist wouldn't you say?

    If you could confirm that he really called the bottom in April 2010, it gives him credibility rather than giving away any secrets. As far as I know, Bruce put together an "All In or Fold" seminar in 2011, and told his investors to go all in while Bill McBride of Calculated Risk called the bottom of the housing market in Feb 2012. Robert Shiller has been bearish the entire time. This is the first time I've heard someone called the bottom of the housing market before Bruce and Bill.

     Hi Minh,

    I gave the past confirmation of calling the top. I don't know if he called the bottom. Also of note, you gave the "bottom" as being April of 2010, and then gave examples of people you respect calling the bottom 1-2 years later. (Note: here's what I found from Senor Google: 

    http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/financial-crime-politics/2009/sep/25/sd-home-prices-at-bottom-says-forbes-guru-robert-c/#). Allow me to do a mini-segue on probability:

    This is the reality of people who "call" the housing market, or any market for that matter. Norris & McBride are calling it after the market has already started to turn. And that's great! Why is that? Because a monkey on a typewriter has just as much likelihood to call the moment when the market turns as an expert on the area. Macroeconomics are so complex, that something like a coup in Turkey can unsettle markets and send house prices down slightly. There's no way to predict everything, which is why trusted investors like McBride and Norris only call things after the market has started to turn. They are well aware of this fact. Asking for someone to have correctly called the specific time the market turned is like only taking the word of someone who went to Vegas, played Hold 'Em once, and got a Royal Flush. Statistically speaking, that Royal Flush-winner is more likely to be someone unskilled than a professional gambler who plays the odds and loses 40% of the time.

    So now that we got that mini-segue about probability out of the way, I will agree that you're right to have skepticism. We're human beings with our own brains to use to examine the case that Campbell makes. Campbell's case is pretty simplistic, that the Bay Area has essentially outpaced the recovery of the US by a ridiculous amount (4x the national average I think? Unsure exactly). On its own merits, Campbell's arguments are insufficient. It occludes what's actually happening in the housing market, but it's easy enough to understand. For instance, I put up a post that dives into some of the deeper factors, and no one responds to it. Posts like these, people do. 

    The long and the short of it is, even within this investing environment, a small set of factors accounts for somewhere around 70-90% of the median price of US home markets: median household income, rental vacancy rate, population growth over the last 50 years, and physical obstruction (green belts, oceans, mountains, can be natural or manmade). Metros with no growth, high vacancy rates, no physical obstructions to expansion and low median household incomes all have pretty low house prices. Markets with high prices have the factors the other way around.

    You can draw up relationships between how obstructed metros are, vacancy rate, etc, and graph the numbers. When you graph the numbers, most US markets behave similarly in response to these variables. These variables account for something like 70-90% of the median house price, per my calculations. Even using next-level analysis like this, the Bay Area jumps off the charts. The Bay Area is so physically obstructed, median incomes are so high, and rental vacancies so low, that it does not appear to be remotely close to the trend line established elsewhere throughout the United States. You know what they call an asset that is significantly above the price its fundamentals would show? A bubble. So that's my take on why the Bay Area is due for a correction at some point in time, and you're free to crunch the numbers on your own. 

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.