Wisest of the crowds

I keep getting asked what will happen to home prices with the Federal Reserve lowering rates to banks. The question implies:

1. What is the relationship of cost of money to prices?
2. Can we identify trends and/or turning points based on this macro-economic variable?

The sub-prime crisis was not born of a real change in cost of money. Rather, it folded under its own weight as artificial borrowing conditions expired and came head-on with artificially inflated home prices. The recovery, on the other hand, may very well be born of a change in cost of money (at least the Fed Reserve is hoping as much).

I believe the past relationship of cost of money and prices is fairly strong and so we should probably consider it. However, the mortgage market is based on long-term MARKET rates (5 year, 10 year, and 30 year US Treasuries) and not DIRECTLY related to the short-term cost of money. Having said that, banks typically borrow short-term and lend long-term and so decreases in their short-term borrowing costs generally will lower mortgage rates - particularly if they WANT TO BE COMPETITIVE. Recently they have not wanted to lend and so lower rates just means increased banking profits. In essence, the Fed is using rates to improve the capitalization of banks. This will eventually flow back into the economy and hence to mortgage borrowers but the immediate impact is less clear.

The National Association of Realtors reported that their “Pending Home Sales Index” for July fell to its lowest level since the post Sept. 11, 2001 period as a result of tightening credit for Jumbo mortgage loans (loans over $417,000).

So what is this index? Directly from the NAR release:

“The Pending Home Sales Index is based on a large national sample, typically representing about 20 percent of transactions for existing-home sales. In developing the model for the index, it was demonstrated that the level of monthly sales-contract activity from 2001 through 2004 parallels the level of closed existing-home sales in the following two months. “

It seems that Three Stooges of the mortgage ecosystem, lenders (Curly), Wall Street mortgage underwriters (Moe), and mortgage buyers (Larry) all woke up after a night of drinking and decided never again (well, at least for a few weeks!) ! These Jumbo loans are NOT purchased by the quasi-government agencies Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac whose job it is to purchase loans from lenders so that lenders have the funds to make more loans - a mechanism to facilitate home ownership for average and lower income home buyers. Jumbo loans do not qualify so they must be either held by lenders or sold to investors via wall street. Since Fannie and Freddie have continued to support loans at the low-end while the high-end has lost free market support, Jumbo’s have shut down for the minority and have gotten MUCH more expensive for the majority. Not surprisingly, the Western part of the US, which has the highest home prices and presumably the most Jumbo loans, got hit hardest being down a whopping 20.8% to 82.3 versus 89.9 nationally.

Will this last? No way. This is a temporary disruption as people reorient their perspective to risk. Will the cost of jumbo’s (as a spread to treasury securities) increase? You can bet on it!

A couple of things I read this weekend are reinforcing something that I have been thinking about the contrasts of old-school business models and (the promise) of new school businesses. I don’t want to quibble about who is “old” and who is “new” but I guess the test is this: “Do you make a truthful promise to your customer?” Take at a look at theses facts, as an example, below:

- 50% of sub-prime borrowers could have qualified for prime rates, according to Fannie Mae

- “Yield Service Premiums” (kickbacks from lenders to mortgage brokers) are present in 85-90% of sub-prime loans.

- US Dept of Housing and Development estimates that 1 in 9 middle income and 1 in 14 upper income families have sub-primes

Are you kidding? As my kids would say “Sheezamageezza!”

This is old school businesses doing its thing of false promises (of their product or service) and lies (not disclosing dangers or conflicts of interest). Someone posing as an “agent” to a mortgage consumer “advises” that a specific product is “best” and the naive consumer accepts this as fact. Even corroboration with another mortgage broker may not yield substantially better terms because, well, the incentives are the same. The “agent” can sell 6.5% loan and make $3,000 or the 9.5% loan and make $15,000. Easy choice for the “agent”.

The issue is this: consumers are directly or implicitly promised one thing and given another. Bait and switch. Unfortunately, false promises are devastating people everywhere - like in the in sub-prime loan sector. Sadly this isn’t new - this is how business has been done forever and this still happens everyday. Think about all those commercials for processed food claiming to be healthy. This cereal or that snack bar. What do you think when you see this?

The company’s website says “symbols of quality, great taste, and nutrition”. Yet if you look into the ingredients you will see:

Its all crap yet somehow people trust that Quaker is a trusted source of nutrition. The brand promise is improved health and the delivery is poor health. The mortgage broker category promise is best rates and the delivery is, for some, the worst rates. False promises and lies - everywhere.

The business people I meet everyday don’t conspire against consumers but rather are reacting to and responding to duplicitous commercial behavior. This is a market response that will win - eventually.

Interestingly there are others looking at this as well. One the one side are those, like Greg Swann in this wordy post, that believe that regulation should be replaced with personal responsibility and free market solutions as it relates to, for example, real estate agents.

On the other hand, there are those like Elizabeth Warren, a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, that make an argument for more regulation in a post entitled “Unsafe at Any Rate” referencing the dangers of various consumer financial products and services.

Swann makes the argument that there should be no licensing requirements for real estate agents and that the industry is using regulations to benefit themselves rather than consumers. I agree that the there is a false promise made to consumers with the agent “licensing” scheme but am undecided if removing licensing makes sense for the very same reason that the sub-prime market is a mess - consumer ignorance and bad actors (although not necessarily illegal actors) yield substantial problems. Matters of health and safety are basically the governments job and so just where the lines of safety end is very debatable. Should financial safety be elevated to bodily safety?

Warren thinks so. Her argument is basically that consumers are subjected to too much complexity - complexity meant to trick consumers or keep them ignorant. For example, most people need not scrutinize consumer products at an engineering level because the government sets saftey guidelines and requires clear saftey disclosures. Yet for financial products it is essentially caveat emptor. Consumers must do the equivelant of engineering (and law) to understand the products they are buying and the risks that they are taking. Adding conflicts of interest, common in the mortgage brokerage and payday businesses, makes consumers that much more vulnerable.

The free market rebuttal to Warren is that a market solution will evetually emerge, which I agree with, but the issue really is how many people must suffer in the interim? How many false promises and lies must people endure before a market solution kicks in? What is an acceptable casualty rate?

No not what you are thinking - not social, ethnic, or racial discrimination. Redfin discriminates on price. PRICE! The 60 minutes piece was a yawn for me personally but it does give Americans the right to start to push back. See the posts and comments at TechCrunch, Redfin, Inman, BloodHound for an early read. Whether it becomes a consumer zeitgeist or fades will be seen but the open question is this: will price variation become mainstream in american residential real estate?

There is an old economic idea called price discrimination that is popular with every micro-econ 101 student, and their professors, that says you reach more customers and make more money by offering variation in pricing. Its sort of definitional for anyone who believes in supply and demand. It works like this: when you go to see a baseball game, there are a 100 variations in pricing to meet everyones needs and to tap into every possible cross section of demand. For example, there are ticket prices for corporations who entertain in luxury boxes and ticket prices for those who mostly prefer a beer and some sun in the bleechers. Ticket prices for season holders and ticket prices for last minute shoppers. In short, EVERYONE can have their demand met for baseball. A small example with the mighty SF Giants here.

What would happen if every ticket was the same price? Mayhem and lost profits. Some people willing to pay more for MLB tickets will transfer their money to an underground marketplace that will use price discovery to allocate tickets. Meanwhile, people at lower price points will be shut out resulting in further lost revenues to MLB. Thats why we have pricing variation. Its better for everyone because everyone gets an allocation and the business folks maximize their revenues.
People might argue that the price variation exists is in the underlying house price and not in the intermediary execution price (brokers & agents). If that were true, then why did trading volume in financial markets explode when electronic execution came into acceptance? (For a slightly more technical explanation {very slightly!}, see my earlier post here).

Redfin discriminates. So do I. It makes sense and it is better for everyone. Many people have commented that Redfin basically passes their work load to external agents to facilitate their transactions and to make their business model work. I can certainly see how that might play out. But if the consumer is footing the work load “bill”, don’t they deserve to get a rebate? Don’t consumers deserve the right to choose their level of service? In the end I believe that consumers will still depend on full service agents because housing is complicated and its something we do rarely. But by offering price variation, we get to grow the pie. Anyone else out there a discriminator? Anyone else want to make more money?

Trulia took a big step into socializing camp by creating a Q&A platform with the help of Pat Kitano. Very sharp looking implementation that now solidly takes Trulia from exclusively broker centric to also being agent centric. The list of reviews worth reading follows: Pat Kitano, StartupSquad, TechCrunch, Joel Burslem, Greg Swann.

Trulia’s implementation is clean and certainly ups the feature ante but is basically catch-up with others including Zillow and My-Currency. User generated content is interesting and valuable but is this going to turn into some sort of vertical social networking war where winner takes all? The audience of home shoppers currently is much older and much more tech phobic than what you might see at typical social networks so what the hell are we all doing? Is this web2.0 hipsters flexing, an investment in future behavior by home buyers & sellers, or part of some master plan to disintermediate the existing ecosystems? All three isnt a bad guess.

For a while I have been wondering which direction Trulia would point their ship - towards the incumbents or away?. It feels to me like listings are a commodity waiting to happen and so the question for listings aggregators, like Trulia, is what next? Going social gets them on plan to taking Zillow head-on without alienating their existing constituents. Zillow has ignored the brokers while Trulia has made them their buddies. Each has their natural advantages and disadvantages but Trulia’s is a safer and more optionable route. Only if you raise a bunch of money can you take the path Zillow is taking. The payoff for Zillow, however, is much bigger with the risk because the consumers are the customers and Zillow does this very well. The real estate industry will never go back and the question I have as an entrepreneur is which strategy will win? One that eats its way through the ecosystem (Trulia) or one that completely goes around it (Zillow)?View blog reactions

The Washington Post has a hilarious (but real) article discussing the inside of New Century Financial - the sub-prime mess to end all messes that is now bankrupt. I first read about the article at Inman blog, entitled You WILL play ball. Below is a WP sampler:

“The stress in that place was ungodly. It was like selling your soul,” said Hardiman, who worked for New Century in 2004 and 2005. “There was instant notification to everyone as soon as you rejected a loan. And you dreaded doing it because you paid for it. Two guys would come with a bat, and they were all [ticked] off because you cut their deals.”

I have posted several times about the conflicts between the appraisers, lenders, and agents here, here and here. Bottom line is that it may be time for buyers to hire their own appraisers. This doesn’t represent a new expense but rather a disaggregation of a current expense. If a buyer uses cash, rather than having the costs buried in other transaction costs, than the buyers can control quality and appraiser can get on with their jobs with conflicts.

Also, we might consider the conflicts from the lending side as to communicating affordability to consumers. Does it make sense to expect a lender, who is commissioned based on the number of closed transactions, to actually protect the customers side of the equation? I suppose the logic is that its the banks money but in truth, lenders sell loans and loan agents get new jobs. So the buck gets passed, Wall Street just play the odds (and gets a commission), and the financially illiterate get stuck holding the bag. Nothing new from “big business” but certainly NOT something part of the new business models powered by the internet - including ours.

The solutions to these and other vexing consumer problems are being addressed by market forces. Entrepreneurs like us see this problems as opportunities to add value to people by being open and transparent about our businesses. We put people at the center of our model and drive everything to satisfy this focus. Gone will be the days when trapping and or tricking a customer into a piece of business is THE model. Gone will be the oligipoly’s upon which many incumbent industries are based. Power is being pushed down to people and the economics will follow. Selling your soul in sub-prime, or any other industry, is a dinosaur waiting to happen. A lot of other charts will look like the one below over the next few years.

Yesterday, Russel Shaw at Bloodhound Blog posted a note he received from a young person sniffing the real estate industry. Entitled “I’ll bring you a big basket of cash if you’ll let me sell your house for free” Shaw responds to the young persons overt question whether the industry is crowded and the covert question as to whether pricing can be used as a competitive weapon. Shaw tells the young person not to use pricing to differentiate (and yes there are too many agents). This got me thinking. If EVERY industry has price discrimination, why doesn’t housing? (yes there are firms like Redfin and FSBO’s but traction is light) This is not whether orange people get better prices than purple people. Not that kind of discrimination. This is you using e-trade for stock execution rather than Morgan Stanley. Does variation in transaction costs make sense for housing?

I am not an economist but here goes.

The graph above is what Shaw is saying. There is one price for transactions (or something like that) and that you should stick to it. An economist would say that given the demand at that price, sales will be S1. Lets see if we add new prices…..

So by adding new prices, we tap into a larger amount of the total demand. From an industry perspective, price discrimination (price variation) yields HIGER total number of transactions. This is why airlines use it. This is why software companies use it. This is why EVERYONE uses it. Ever clipped a coupon? Ever cashed in on frequent flier miles? This is price discrimination at work.

So the one thing to consider that might debunk this basic economic notion is whether the demand curve (in blue) is in fact oddly shaped. Lets take a look….

So if demand is the same regardless of price then Mr. Shaw is correct. In fact, if demand in the real estate industry is oblivious to transaction costs than Mr. Shaw and all the other realtors are bloody idiots for not raising prices. So I guess the question is this: is demand for housing sensitive to transaction costs or not? If it is, like most things, then everyone stands to be better off by offering differing levels of pricing (and service). If demand for housing is not sensitive to transaction costs…then put your orders in for those new german cars because margins are about to get much better.

Giddy up little doggy!

Ardell DellaLoggia of the Rain City Guide pens one the best pieces I have seen regarding housing valuations at a hyper-local level. Entitled Home Valuation “Tools”, Ardell goes on to detail how to properly value a property and how to seperate the value of the land versus the value of the house…an important consideration, often overlooked, in expensive markets where most of the value is actually land (I am talking to you San Francisco!).  Her analysis is deep so get a pencil out but the basic takeaway is that if you can determine the cost of land, and make adjustments for slight differences, you should be able to determine which houses are overpriced and which ones are underpriced.  Ardell finds a home that was torn down after being purchased and so was able to get a solid market value for land. Getting everything apples to apples is critical - and not easy.
Her analysis is not only thorough, but also demonstrates that housing valuation is a highly complex problem that has variation from property to property. In other words, it is very difficult to model and so AVM’s will largely miss the nuances. Naturally we at My-Currency have built our site for this very reason - to enable the local experts to shine and to collect these nuances both in detail and as an aggregated value in our prediction technology we call CrowdValue.

Joel Burslem continues to demonstrate his deep knowledge of tech by discussing how the real estate industry can leverage social networking sites like Facebook to broaden their network of clients and market their listings. In an article entitled Marketing Real Estate on Facebook, Burslem outlines five basic ways an agent can use social networks. Naturally, we agree with Joel. My-Currency is a vertical social network, a term I first read many moons ago at the blog Social Degree. The difference between My-Currency and Facebook is the difference between Walmart and Whole Foods. Walmart has everything but Whole Foods has only the best.

My-Currency is trying to be more relevant to users by focusing on, and aggregating, content specific to housing consumers. We give you all the tools you need to get inside housing problems. For a professional, it should prove a resource that demonstrates to your current clients authority while hooking and incubating future clients. For consumers, its an opportunity to share information and get professional advice - free. The site has all the basic building blocks in place. The open question is whether a vertical network will better serve consumers and professionals than a horizontal network. We obviously think so. That is not to say Facebook and their like are not of value. They are - use them! In fact, we will look to integrate with them and other parts of the internet ecosystem. Its just that we think focus, focus, focus will create better relevancy and better engagement with those interested in housing.

So when you want to purchase Tide Detergent go to Walmart. When you need a 25 year old bottle of Academia Barilla Balsamic Vinegar from Modena, Italy, go to Whole Foods. Do you, as an agent, want to be lost in aisles of Walmart like poorly selling lines of Tide detergent?

More news from the Commerce Department (pdf) yesterday - the number of homes sitting empty has increased fairly dramatically. Homeowner vacancy increased to 2.8% from 2.1% and rental vacancy increased to 10.1% from 9.5% versus the first quarter of 2006. That means that there are now almost 4 million units for rent, 2.2 million houses for sale and 7.3 millions units vacant for no apparent reason (dead cities?). When looking at homeowner data by area, cities increased 60% to 4% occupancy, Metropolitan Statistical Areas increased 45% to 2.9%, and suburbs increased 33% to 2.4%. Regionally, the South has both the highest rental and homeowner vacancy. The data below: