PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Condo Market not Saturated Yet



Dougall5505
Mar 16, 2007, 1:54 PM
Banker waxes confident on condos
Despite the boom in building, a Wells Fargo real estate manager is confident the Portland market is far from saturated
Friday, March 16, 2007
DYLAN RIVERA
Even casual observers of Portland's high-rise condominium construction wonder when the air will drain from the urban condo balloon.

The answer to that question matters intensely to the bankers who have financed the condo boom with hundreds of millions of dollars in loans. Wells Fargo Bank, which has financed construction of 1,739 units since 1996, has the most on the line. Its construction loans and mortgages for urban condos in Portland total more than $1 billion during that time.

Nelda Scott Newton, Wells Fargo's manager of commercial real estate lending for Oregon and Southwest Washington, found in a recent market study that even with nearly 3,500 units in the pipeline, there's no cause for worry about a saturated market. Even if demand fell by half, she said, empty condos would still sell within about a year after completion, she believes.

Of course, bankers have been wrong before, most famously in the 1980s. Newton discussed her assessment of the condo market earlier this week. Excerpts are shown here, edited for clarity and length.

The condo market and the overall housing market have slowed down in the last year. Do you think we're overbuilding condos?

Well, the condominium market continues to absorb and do well. When one looks at all of those cranes throughout the downtown area, it's important to remember that there's a lot of product differentiation among the projects -- The South Waterfront, the Waterfront itself, the Pearl District, the Northwest, the Arts District (near Portland Art Museum).

There are studios, up to million-dollar-plus penthouse units. So there is a depth and maturity to the market that didn't exist five to 10 years ago.

What did you find in your recent market study?

Right now, there are about 3,500 units under construction or in planning. That is roughly half what was built in the last eight to 10 years, so it is quite a large number.

Developers typically start to market their projects about a year before the project is completed. In the past, these projects have been pretty much sold out by the time the construction is completed.
That changed with the last couple of projects that came into our market. That frenetic pace has slowed. And the rate of absorption of the units has slowed.

In this study, how deep a downturn did you assume the urban condo market would suffer?

Because we could ascertain there was a slowing, we assumed the market would slow 50 percent.
We assumed these projects would be 50 percent sold at completion, and instead of the units selling at eight to 10 units month, that they would absorb about three units per month. Our intent was to see how many units at one time, excluding resales, might be unsold and available on the market.

If new buildings are 50 percent unsold upon completion, who goes bankrupt? Does the sky fall?

No, we don't think the sky falls. Assuming that occurs, some time around the first quarter of 2008, we would have conceivably around 700 or 800 standing, unsold new units -- so very different than anything we've experienced to date. Also, this is a more conservative assumption than is likely to exist: We aren't predicting a 50 percent decline in the market.

We assert that there's a potential for a year of inventory under this 50 percent scenario. That's something that our market can weather, that our developers can weather. Interest rates are still at historically low levels, we still have good in-migration, and we have a nice quality of life. There are unique attributes to Portland, coupled with that being a manageable number that gives us confidence that the market will be fine for downtown housing.

Is the Portland condo market more risky, or less, than other markets? How does our market compare to other markets?

We've enjoyed a healthier market in large part because of the control by our local developers. We're a smaller market, so we haven't attracted some of the outside national capital that some of the larger markets have attracted. We also haven't had the level of speculation that other markets have seen. That's really a positive for us.

When there's too much speculative investment, it creates the appearance of demand that doesn't really exist. We estimate that the units that recently sold, about 15 percent have sold just for investment purposes. In some of the overheated markets, those figures are as high at 70 percent, and that makes a market that is not sustainable.
The fact that our market is returning to a more normal, sustainable pace is positive because that discourages speculators. So we haven't had an excess of speculators to begin with, but people are further deterred at this point from going out and selling their soul to buy two or three units to flip them and make a quick profit.

That, coupled with the fact that the developers have actively discouraged speculative investors, leads us to conclude from a pretty small sample that 15 percent plus or minus is what we might be experiencing in our market.

People tend to think that condominiums are more volatile than detached housing, in part because of a severe downturn in the 1980s. Do you think that's still the case?
In the last 10 years nationally there has been a trend toward downtown living and efforts by cities across the country to revitalize their downtown to make them 24-hour centers. There are many reasons people cite for the trend: demographics, baby boomers, people downsizing, lack of available land. So there are many variables that account for the booming condominium market.

We think that urban living is an established and desirable lifestyle choice that's not likely to just evaporate. Particularly, when we have a city like Portland that's really nationally and internationally recognized as a very attractive, vibrant community.

Certainly real estate is cyclical and remains cyclical, but we drew comfort from these numbers that indicate that we don't have an excess supply, we have a manageable supply, even with a downturn in the market.

There's a perception in the community that what's fueling the condo market here is Californians relocating with high equity from sales of homes there. Is that your perception of what's driving demand here or is it more diverse than that?

Yes, there are people who have moved here from out of state, including from California, Idaho, Washington.

Seven or eight years ago when we were financing these, the first response was "People from the West Hills will want to sell their homes and downsize." That has been some element, people from suburban areas, that has been an element, people who live on the coast and still want to have a tie to the city. . . .

We've derived comfort from the fact that there really is no single demand factor that can be compromised and undermine the health of the condominium market. We view it as very positive that there's not one single answer to where these buyers are coming from.

Dylan Rivera: 503-221-8532, dylanrivera@news.oregonian.com
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/1174013727231550.xml&coll=7

MarkDaMan
Mar 16, 2007, 3:59 PM
this is good news...they had a great layout of number of condo units per building and % of units sold. I had no idea there is almost 3500 condos under construction or just completed! The % sold was actually quite impressive for the majority of buildings. The Atwater still hasn't broke above 30% but other buildings marketed for at least a year were all over 50% sold.

Leo
Mar 16, 2007, 4:56 PM
This seems a somewhat odd study, or at least a very non-critical review of the study. Maybe they're skimming on the details, but it prompts some fairly fundamental questions.

"there's no cause for worry about a saturated market. Even if demand fell by half, she said, empty condos would still sell within about a year after completion, she believes"

I find it difficult to believe that a lender would not be concerned about demand falling by half. Sure, they might expect the units to be sold after a year, but at what price? A 50% cut in demand will be accompanied by a significant decrease in prices. Significant declines in prices usually result in significant increases in loan defaults. If I was a lender, I would be concerned about defaults.


"Our intent was to see how many units at one time, excluding resales, might be unsold and available on the market."

Excluding resales is somewhat bizarre. There's quiet a lot of "condo hopping" going on in areas like the Pearl District (people who move to a new building every two years or so). For every new construction unit these people buy, they put a competing unit on the market. Hence, the assumption that every new unit sold is being absorbed into the market is false: When a condo hopper buys a new construction unit, the net absorption rate is zero until he sells his own unit.

" Interest rates are still at historically low levels, we still have good in-migration, and we have a nice quality of life. There are unique attributes to Portland"

Low interest rates, population growth, and nice quality of life are unique to Portland?

MarkDaMan
Mar 16, 2007, 5:01 PM
^I'm not sure you read the entire article or just bits and pieces. Together her answers make perfect sense. Considering this is Portland's largest lender, I tend to think she/they have their shit together.

Leo
Mar 16, 2007, 6:49 PM
^I'm not sure you read the entire article or just bits and pieces. Together her answers make perfect sense. Considering this is Portland's largest lender, I tend to think she/they have their shit together.

I read the whole article. My questions from my previous post are not addressed in the article.

Just because a lender is big doesn't mean they have "their shit together." New Century is the #1 independent subprime lender in the country, and they are being forced to buy back $900 million in mortgage loans. They only have $60 million in cash and may be forced to buy back as much as $8 billion in loans ( http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/191977 )

I realize that New Century does primarily mortgage loans, not construction loans. Nevertheless, it adequately demonstrates that big does not equal competent. I think Newton's answers are quite flippant and the reporter did not provide much critcal analysis of the interview.

zilfondel
Mar 16, 2007, 7:43 PM
"there's no cause for worry about a saturated market. Even if demand fell by half, she said, empty condos would still sell within about a year after completion, she believes"

I find it difficult to believe that a lender would not be concerned about demand falling by half. Sure, they might expect the units to be sold after a year, but at what price? A 50% cut in demand will be accompanied by a significant decrease in prices.

This fall in demand is going from completely selling a building out a year before it's even completed to selling out what, right around when it opens? Hardly cause for concern, I'd say.

MarkDaMan
Mar 16, 2007, 7:56 PM
New Century loans are/were targeted to the market unable to qualify for loans. They convinced hundred of thousands of American's that home ownership was within their grasp. All they had to do was pay the interest payments on an adjustable rate mortgage for X period of time, and after said X time was completed they would be in a better position financially to pay the higher costs. Guess what, X period of time came quickly for a lot of people.

What happened at New Century has absolutely nothing to do with Wells Fargo approving construction loans. It isn't even apples and oranges, its like apples and trees.

And I fail to see the 'flippant' answers. Wells Fargo did a worst case scenario, and still determined everyone would come out okay, maybe not ahead, but okay. The probability of a worst case scenario happening, giving the positive indicators, is minimal at best, and she even used examples of overheated markets.

It appears Leo that you have some other motivation arguing about this article. Are you in a city who's market has tanked and are trying to tell yourself it's okay because everyone's will tank as well, or just a Portland hater?

PacificNW
Mar 16, 2007, 8:45 PM
↑ I am curious as to why many of those who post on this forum do not list a city/town/area where they reside... It's not like "we are going to hunt them down" if we have a disagreement. I find it annoying, though, when someone states a strong opinion their place of residence is no where to be found. :)

tworivers
Mar 17, 2007, 12:18 AM
Put it to bed Potter.

I'll say it again: Charlie Hales for Mayor 2008

PacificNW
Mar 17, 2007, 1:17 AM
Yah...Charlie or Earl...

pdxman
Mar 17, 2007, 1:40 AM
What about sam?

PacificNW
Mar 17, 2007, 3:38 AM
I think that is Sam's plan.... I think he would definitely be better than Potter...

pdxman
Mar 17, 2007, 3:40 AM
I think there are a lot of people who are better than potter.

Leo
Mar 18, 2007, 7:57 PM
This fall in demand is going from completely selling a building out a year before it's even completed to selling out what, right around when it opens? Hardly cause for concern, I'd say.

Well, you have to consider that the near-100% sell-out rate is already factored into the sale price of the condo units. If we had one of those crazy situations were people camped out on the sidewalk to reserve a unit, then prices would be higher. And if only 50% of the units were sold at completion, then prices would be lower.

Pre-sales have already dropped well below the 100% rate. Today's Oregonian reports that more than 20% of the units at John Ross have not yet sold. A casual perusal of RMLS shows plenty of units available at the Eliot and the Vaux.

I'm not saying that a 50% cut in demand would lead to the end of the world as we know it. But I also don't think that a 50% cut in demand (and the concomitant fall in profits) would lead developers to simply say, "no big deal; we'll be OK." I don't think there's a corporation in the world who would react this way to a 50% reduction in demand.

Leo
Mar 18, 2007, 7:59 PM
It appears Leo that you have some other motivation arguing about this article. Are you in a city who's market has tanked and are trying to tell yourself it's okay because everyone's will tank as well, or just a Portland hater?

This seems needlessly melodramatic. Does it make you feel better if I tell you that I live in Portland and love it here? In fact, if you live near the picture that you post, we probably only live a few blocks from each other... I don't want my neighborhood impacted by irresponsible "boom & bust" development.

You argued that Wells-Fargo had "their shit together" because they were Portland's largest lender. I brought up New Century as an example of a lender that was also large, but did not "have their shit together." I disagree with your position that the size of a corporation automatically implies competence in anticipating future market conditions.

If you read my post again, you will see that I did not say that Wells Fargo did the same thing that New Century did. In fact, you will see that I myself pointed out that they do very different things. Not that it matters, since my point was only that large does not equal competent.

What I find flippant about Newton's response is the casual manner in which she dismisses a hypothetical 50% decrease in demand. Note that her response focuses on market time, which is odd. The lender gets paid interest no matter when the units sell, so it is an odd thing to talk about. What she should be worried about is how a 50% decrease in demand would affect prices. Because if prices for the collateral fall below the loan value, then the risk structure of the loan changes dramatically. But she doesn't discuss prices at all, and the interviewer did not press her on it.

Also notice that she doesn't address the interviewer's question about whether the condo market is being fueled by equity transfers from CA, etc. She merely sidesteps the concern by saying that there are also buyers from other areas, which is irrelevant. The question was whether the market was being DRIVEN by equity transfer (which is usually not sustainable), not whether all buyers were from CA.

Altogether, this interview struck me more like corporate propaganda than critical journalism. I would like newspapers to be a little more than advertisements for big business. You don't have to agree with me.