Showing posts with label real estate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label real estate. Show all posts

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Arguments against buying a house

US Housing Crash Continues

What are their arguments?

  1. Houses always increase in value in the long run.
    FALSE. Price is what you pay and value is what you get. The value of a house is constant. It just sits there. You get shelter, but you have to pay property tax and maintenance and the loss of alternative uses of capital. A house is a dead asset. The price of a house rises with salary inflation, but house prices cannot increase more than incomes in the long run. This is obvious if you think about it. If house prices go up more than people can afford to pay, buying stops, like it has stopped now.For example, prices in the Netherlands are about the same as they were 350 years ago, in terms of how many years of work it takes to buy a house. Warren Buffett and Charles Schwab have both pointed out that houses don't increase in intrinsic value. Unless there's a bubble or a crash, house prices simply reflect current salaries and interest rates. Consider a 100 year old house. Its value in sheltering you is exactly the same as it was 100 years ago. It did not increase in value at all. It did not spontaneously get bigger, or renovate itself. Quite the opposite - the house drained cash from its owners for 100 years of maintenance, taxes, and insurance - costs that never go away. The price of the house went up about as much as salaries went up.
    My grandmother always used to complain about the cost of milk. "Why, when I was a girl, a gallon of milk cost a dime! Just look at how much people are overcharging for milk now." I asked her how much people got paid back then. "Oh, about $15 a week", came the reply. Hmmm, sounds very much like the reasoning people use now when they talk about how much their father's house appreciated "in the long run" without considering that inflation and salaries rose a proportional amount.
    I don't see any salary inflation in our future for years to come, and that's the only kind of inflation that boosts house prices. Inflation in everything else (food, energy, medical) just takes away from the money people have to spend on housing.
     
  2. As a renter, you have no opportunity to build equity.
    FALSE. Equity is just money. Renters are actually in a better position to build equity through investing in anything but housing. Renters can get rich much faster than owners, just by saving the money that owners are wasting on mortgages, taxes, and maintenance. Renters are getting paid to wait, both by the monthly savings and by watching the value of their savings increase relative to housing.
    • Owers are losing every month by paying much more in interest than they would pay in rent. The income deduction does not come close to making owing competitive with renting.
    • Owers are losing principal in a leveraged way as prices decline. A 14% decline completely wipes out all the equity of "owners" who actually own only 20% of their house. Remember that the agents will take 6% if they possibly can.
    • Owers must pay taxes simply to own a house. That is not true of stocks, bonds, or any other asset that can build equity. Only houses are such a guaranteed drain on cash.
    • Owers must insure a house, but not most other investments.
    • Owers must pay to repair a house, but not a stock or a bond.
  3. Renting is just throwing money away.
    FALSE, renting is now much cheaper per month than owning the same thing. If you don't rent, you either:
    • Have a mortgage, in which case you are throwing away money on interest, tax, insurance, and maintenance.
    • Own outright, in which case you are throwing away the extra income you could get by converting your house to cash, investing in bonds, and renting a similar place to live for much less money. This extra income could be 50% to 200% beyond rent costs forever, and for many is enough to retire right now.
    Either way, owners lose much more money every month than renters. Currently, yearly rents in the San Francisco Bay Area are about 3% of the cost of buying an equivalent house. This means a house is returning about 3% rent minus taxes and maintenance, bringing the landlord's return down to 0%.
    Landlords are loaning a house to their tenants at a 3% interest rate, called rent. This is a fantastic deal for renters. When it is possible to borrow a million dollar house for 3% yearly rent at the same time a loan of a million dollars in cash costs 6.5% interest, plus 1.3% property tax, plus 1% maintenance, something is clearly broken. Renters are enjoying an extreme discount at the owner's expense.
    If someone tells you that you are throwing money away, you can reply "The landlord is giving me a huge gift. He's subsidizing me to live in his rental. I'll take free money any day."
    If someone tells you that you are "Not building equity", you can reply you are not LOSING equity, which happened to millions of people, and is still going on right now.
    To add insult to "owners", their property is declining in value. Renters are completely protected from the massive losses owners are experiencing. Here's a great quote from NPR:
    Underwater owner: "We would do it [pay the mortgage] if the equity was there, but in a case where we're already so behind... Imagine that for five years, say, we're gonna pay four grand a month and then we're just gonna be back up at what we bought the house for. We feel like we're throwing away money."
  4. There are great tax advantages to owning.
    PARTIALLY TRUE. It's true for high-income couples with expensive houses and big mortgages, but not for modest-income couples in modest houses, especially if there is no mortgage.Every married couple filing jointly automatically gets to subtract an $11,400 deduction ($5,700 for singles) from their adjusted gross income to arrive at their taxable income. Alternately, you may add up modest deductions in seven categories: Medical, Taxes, Interest, Charity, Casualty and Theft, Job Expenses, and Other Misc. If the total of your expenses in these categories exceeds the standard deduction, you can itemize them on Schedule A of your tax return to reduce your taxable income.
    Let's assume that your only deductible expenses fall into the Taxes and Interest categories. Taxes mainly include the income tax you pay to the state (or its sales tax) and the property taxes on your home or other non-investment real estate. In a high-tax state like New Jersey, you might easily pay $7,200 in property taxes and $200 in income taxes, for a total of $7,400. So the first $4,000 of interest expenses just brings your deductions up to the standard $11,400, without reducing your taxable income.
    For a high-income couple, let's assume they can itemize their state income tax of $3,400, contributions of $1,000, and medical expenses of $1,000. These deductions use up $5,400 of the $11,400 standard deduction. So the first $6,000 of property taxes and interest save them nothing. After that, their savings depend on their tax bracket, which could be as high as 35 percent.
    For couples with modest incomes and mortgages, the first $11,400 of taxes and interest save them nothing.
    Evaluate your situation before making a buy-rent decision based on potential income-tax savings. Be sure to consider the deduction limit imposed by the AMT, too. Interest is paid in real dollars that buyers suffered to earn. That money is really entirely gone, even if the buyer didn't pay income tax on those dollars before spending them on mortgage interest. You don't get rich spending a dollar to save 30 cents!
    Buyers do not get interest back at tax time. If a buyer gets an income tax refund, that's just because he overpaid his taxes, giving the government an interest-free loan. The rest of us are grateful.
    If you don't own a house but want to live in one, your choice is to rent a house or rent money to buy a house. To rent money is to take out a loan. A mortgage is a money-rental agreement. House renters take no risk at all, but money-renting owners take on the huge risk of falling house prices, as well as all the costs of repairs, insurance, property taxes, etc.
    Even if you pay outright, you're still renting the house to yourself, losing alternative uses of that money, and taking the risk of falling house prices.
    Compare the cost of owning to renting.
  5. All real estate is local, so you cannot say anything about the national market.
    FALSE. Lending is global. All loans are harder to get. This will push prices down everywhere.
  6. OK, owning is a loss in monthly cash flow, but appreciation will make up for it.
    FALSE. Appreciation is negative. Prices are going down, which just adds insult to the monthly injury of crushing mortgage payments.
  7. As soon as prices drop a little, the number of buyers on the sidelines willing to jump back in increases.
    FALSE. There are very few buyers left, and those who do want to buy will be limited by increasing difficulty of borrowing.No one has to buy, but there will be more and more people who have no choice but to sell as their payments rise. That will keep driving prices downward for a long time.
  8. House prices don't fall to zero like stock prices, so it's safer to invest in real estate.
    FALSE. It's true that house prices do not fall to zero (except in Detroit), but your equity in a house can easily fall to zero, and then way past zero into the red. Even a fall of only 4% completely wipes out everyone who has only 10% equity in their house because agents will take 6% if they can trap the seller with a contract. This means that house price crashes are actually worse than stock crashes. Most people have most of their money in their house, and that money is highly leveraged.
  9. The bubble prices were driven by supply and demand.
    FALSE. Prices were driven by low interest rates and risky loans. Supply is up, and the average family income fell 2.3% from 2001 to 2004, so prices are violating the most basic assumptions about supply and demand.The www.census.gov site has data for Santa Clara County for the years 2000-2003 which shows that the number of housing units went up at the same time that the population decreased: year units people
    • 2000 580868 / 1686474 = 0.344 housing units per person
    • 2001 587013 / 1692299 = 0.346
    • 2002 592494 / 1677426 = 0.353
    • 2003 596526 / 1678421 = 0.355
    So housing supply in Santa Clara County increased 3% per person during those years. There is an oversupply compared to a few years before, when prices were lower.At a national level, there is a similar story in the years 2000 to 2005:
    • 2000 115.9M / 281M = 0.412 housing units per person
    • 2005 124.6M / 295M = 0.422
    At a national level, there is 2.4% more housing per person now than in 2000. So national prices should have fallen as well.A for-sale sign in a yard instantly increases the supply of houses on the market. There is no need to wait for builders.
    The truth is that prices can rise or fall without any change in supply or demand. The bubble was a mania of cheap and easy credit. Now the mania is over.
  10. They aren't making any more land.
    TRUE, but sales volume has fallen 40% in the last year alone. It seems they aren't making any more buyers, either.Japan has a severe land shortage, but that hasn't stopped prices from falling for 15 years straight. Prices in Japan are now at the same level they were 23 years ago. If we really had a housing shortage, there would not be so many vacant houses.
  11. Your calculator says the house I'm interested in is worth far less than the asking price. That's not very helpful in coming up with an offer. FALSE. It's very helpful to be able to document that you could be paying much less to live in the same location and same quality house, just by renting. It's a great negotating point.
  12. It is hard to find a rental that is the equivalent of this home. PARTIALLY TRUE. Sometimes there just is no equivalent rental available in the same area. Placing an ad saying you're looking for a rental in that area in a certain rent range is often enough to bring new rentals out of the woodwork though.
  13. Attractive areas will not follow strict economic laws of their worth. If I keep bidding what a home is strictly worth, I will always lose to someone who simply wants to live there, even if their money could be better invested elsewhere. FALSE. You can't lose by winning. Renting the same quality house in the same area for much less money every month than an owner pays is winning. Maybe others get the intangible feeling of ownership, but you get the cash that they are losing.
  14. If you don't own, you'll live in a dump in a bad neighborhood.
    FALSE. For the any given monthly payment, you can rent a much better house than you can buy. Renters live better, not worse. There are downsides to renting, such as being told to move at the end of your lease, or having your rent raised, but since there are thousands of vacant rentals, you can take your pick and be quite happy renting during the crash. There are similar but worse problems for owners anyway, such as being fired and losing your house, or having your interest rate and property taxes adjust upward. Remember, property taxes are forever.Some people want the mobility that renting affords. Renters can usually get out of a lease and move anywhere they want within one month, with no real estate commission. On the other side, if you can get a long-term lease, you will probably find it worthwhile to repair the place to your taste. The average time of owning a house is only seven years anyway.
    It is cheaper to rent a house in a good school district than to buy a house in the same place. In fact, children benefit in several significant ways from living in a rental. Aside from having a choice of school district, kids in a rental benefit from better parks in nicer neighborhoods, more living space, and less stress in their parents' voice -- all because it is still so much cheaper to rent than to own in bubble areas.
    A fun trick to rent a good house cheap: go to an open house, take the agent aside, and ask if the owner is interested in renting the place out. Often, desperate sellers will be happy to get a little rental cash coming in and give you a great deal. Sometimes they will rent to you for free ($0) as long as you keep the place up and pay the utilities.
    The biggest upside is hardly ever mentioned: renters can choose a short commute by living very close to work or to the train line. An extra two hours every day of free time not wasted commuting is the best bonus you can ever get.
  15. Owners can change their houses to suit their tastes.
    FALSE. Even single family detached housing is often restricted by CC&Rs and House Owner's Associations (HOAs). Imagine having to get the approval of some picky neighbor on the "Architectural Review Board" every time you want to change the color of your trim. Yet that's how most houses are sold these days.In California, the HOA can and will foreclose on your house without a judicial hearing. They can fine you $100/day for leaving your garage door open, and then take your house away if you refuse to pay. There's a good HOA blog here.
  16. The house down the street sold for 25% over asking, and that proves the market is still hot.
    FALSE. agents have been known to create the false impression of a hot market by deliberately "underpricing" a house, especially in California. I personally have seen this happen repeatedly. Say a seller's agent knows that house will probably go for $400,000. He places ads asking $300,000 instead, a price lower than the buyer would accept. (Bait-and-switch is illegal when selling toasters, but apparently not when selling houses.) The goal is to first of all prevent buyers from knowing what a realistic price is, and secondly to get buyers to blindly bid against each other. There are four players in this game and three of them are against the buyer -- the seller, the seller's agent and the buyer's agent. Yes, the buyer's own agent works against the buyer, because there is no commission if there is no sale. There's a saying in Las Vegas: "There's a patsy in every game, and if you don't know who the patsy is, you're it."If you want to prove your agent is not on your side, ask to see houses "for sale by owner" or houses listed by discount brokers. If the agent cannot make a commission, you will not be told about the house.
    There is a way around the conflict of interest inherent in being a buyer's agent: let the seller's agent be your agent too, just for that one house he's trying to sell. Then the seller's agent has a big motive to lower the price, because he will get double the commission if you buy it rather than some buyer with his own agent.
    Note that you are free to bid far lower than the asking price. You might be pleasantly surprised to find out how desperate the sellers are. Another good reason to start low: you can easily raise your offer, but it's awkward to lower it. A suggestion from a reader: have all your friends bid extremely low for the house before you, then your own low bid will seem more reasonable.
    Another suggestion for dealing with underpricing:
    Get over it, and just beat them at their own game: Beat out all other bidders by bidding unrealistically high, and just be sure to have your offer contingent upon financing & house inspection. Since the bank won't finance you above the appraised value, you're then in a very strong position to re-negotiate the price far lower during escrow. The other bidders will be long gone.
  17. I was lucky that my agent told me to increase my bid by $50,000. Otherwise I would have lost, because my agent knew about a secret bid $40,000 above mine.
    FALSE. Your agent gets paid nothing if you don't buy the house, and he gets more if you waste more money by bidding too high. It is unwise to take at face value "secret" information that costs you money.
  18. The MLS proves things are great.
    FALSE. The MLS (Multiple Listing Service, a private network of databases controlled by real estate agents) is a used-house sales tool designed to restrict access to critical market information to prevent the free market from working efficiently.I have been told that all sorts of funny things happen in the MLS. For example, if a house just doesn't sell, that agents can remove its record in the MLS so that you cannot see that it failed to sell. Then the house comes back on the market at a lower price, and unsuspecting buyers think it's on the market for the first time. Their agent can "prove" it's a new listing by showing the MLS record to the buyer: "See, here's the listing date, just came on the market. Better hurry and buy it, this one is hot."
    There is no government agency checking that the MLS shows true transaction prices.
    Furthermore, the MLS will not list any house for sale by owner, and will resist listing property for sale through a discount broker, or bank-owned property, or extreme discounts from builders, or many other cases where you could save huge amounts of money. Those cheaper prices are often not in the system, because if you save money, they lose money. Even if some cheaper properties are listed, your agent is not likely to tell you about them if they require more work on his part, or get him a smaller commission.
  19. I'll just amortize the commissions and other transaction costs over 30 years and they'll be OK.
    FALSE. The average length of ownership is seven years, not thirty. That means the 7% or so that you'll pay in commission and closing fees comes out to about 1% per year, and that's actually a lot of money. You may think you're different and will actually stay put for 30 years, but statistically you're not, and you won't.
  20. Rich Chinese (or Europeans, or Arabs) are driving up housing prices.
    FALSE. The percentage of US houses bought by rich foreigners is tiny. Furthermore, American housing is clearly a bad investment at this point. Foreigners can just wait and watch American housing continue to fall, and then buy for much less in a few years. Rich foreign investors are not dumb enough to buy into a badly overpriced market, but your agent is hoping that you are.Patrick.net reader John H. points out that when the Chinese property bubble implodes, there will probably be sales of property in California and British Columbia to cover their losses at home.
  21. Local incomes justify the high prices.
    FALSE. Most bankers use a multiple of 3 as the maximum "safe" price-to-income ratio. We are well beyond the danger zone, into the twilight zone. The price to income ratio is still around 10 in the SF Bay Area.
  22. Prices were always way beyond equivalent rent in San Francisco (or whatever expensive town)
    FALSE. Price to rent ratios were normal in San Francisco and other the other expensive towns in 2000. That ratio more than doubled by 2005. See page 34 of John Talbott's excellent book called "Sell Now!"
  23. Higher-income people can afford to spend a larger portion of their income on a mortgage, so your 6% rule of thumb does not apply to them.
    FALSE. Even if you can spend more than 6% of the purchase price each year on a mortgage and other costs to own a house, that does not mean you should. In fact, gross rents are almost always less than 6% in richer neighborhoods, making it an even worse deal for the buyer in these places. The renter living in the same quality house next door loses far less money per month.
  24. You have to live somewhere.
    TRUE, but that doesn't mean you should waste your life savings on a bad investment. You can live in a better house for much less money by renting during the crash. A renter could save hundreds of thousands of dollars, not only by paying less every month, but by avoiding the devastating loss of his downpayment.
  25. Newspaper articles prove prices are not falling in my neighborhood.
    FALSE. The numbers in the papers are not complete and have murky origins. Those prices are "estimated" from the county transfer tax and making that tax public record is optional. A buyer who does not want you to see how little he paid has only to ask to put the transfer tax on the back of the deed and it will not show up on computer searches of the deed, which show only the front. Others voluntarily pay more tax than they have to, in order to inflate the apparent price to fool the next buyer. At a tax rate of about $1 per thousand of sale price, as in San Mateo county, you have to pay only $100 extra tax to make your purchase price look $100,000 higher.Even though you can in theory go to your county building and get sale price information, in reality the county will give it to you in a painfully slow and inconvenient way. For example, in Redwood City's county building there are PC's where you can look at data for any particular house, but you cannot print, you cannot save to a floppy disk, you cannot email data out. All you can do is write things down manually, one at a time. And that's how real estate interests like it. Your elected representatives are serving them, not you.
    Supposedly impartial sources like Dataquick are paid for entirely by people with a large financial interest in "proving" that prices are not falling. This makes it unwise to take their numbers at face value.
    For the obviously biased sources like real estate agents, you should assume that their sales price numbers do not include the effective price reductions from "incentives" like upgrades, vacations, cars, assumed mortgages and backroom cash rebates to buyers.
  26. My appraisal proves what my house is worth.
    FALSE. "An appraisal in its typical residential real estate form is little more than a comparative analysis conducted by someone with no skin in the game offering confirmation that other lemmings are paying too much for their houses as well." -from an article on morningstar.comAmazingly, government house price measures do not include houses with jumbo mortgages. This excludes well over half of all houses in California. So the government can report a slight price rise, but fail to mention that prices actually fell for the other 60% of houses in California.
  27. Foreclosures destroy neighborhoods, so we should stop foreclosures.
    FALSE. Empty houses destroy neighborhoods. Houses remain empty only because the prices are too high. "Anti-foreclosure" programs just keep prices too high, and keep houses empty. In areas where there are jobs, if prices were allowed to fall enough so that salaries can easily cover the cost of owning, people would move in and take care of the houses. In areas without jobs, the first priority should be jobs.
  28. It's not a house, it's a home.
    FALSE. It's a house. Wherever one lives is home, be it apartment, condo, or house. Calling a house a "home" is a manipulation of your emotions for profit. Don't let them push your buttons.A house is a wooden box that sits out in the rain and slowly rots. No one would buy in this market if they really thought about how much pain it's going to cause them in the long run. That's why they sell you a home, not a house.
  29. If you don't own, you're a failure.
    FALSE. Maximizing your savings and escaping the slavery of debt is success. Most people have a hard time understanding this, but they do understand cash. You could show them your bank statements to prove you're way ahead of the game as a renter, but then they would probably just ask you for a loan!The use of the status card is another well-known button that agents push to trick people into making foolish purchases. Don't let them do it.
  30. Property in the San Francisco Bay Area is a luxury good, and so will be less affected by economic downturns.
    FALSE. Most San Francisco Bay Area mortgages are ARMs, and ARM loans are not taken out by the rich. People on the border of bankruptcy take out ARMs because they can't afford fixed rate loans. The rich don't have loans at all.Many of these ARM loans have exceptionally deadly repayment terms, and so are known as "neutron mortgages". Like the neutron bomb, they destroy people, but leave buildings standing. They are also known as "suicide loans".
  31. House ownership is at a record high, proving things are affordable.
    FALSE. The percentage of their house that most Americans actually own is at a record low, not a high. We do have a record number of people who have title to a house because they have dangerous levels of mortgage debt, but that is no cause to celebrate.
  32. Rents could shoot up, making it a better deal to buy.
    FALSE. Rents are limited by the money people actually earn, not by how much they can borrow. Try walking into a bank and asking for a loan to pay your rent. For rents to shoot up, salaries would have to shoot up first. Salaries are not likely to rise at all given the current unemployment rate.
  33. You failed to factor in emotion. More houses are sold on emotion than will ever be sold based on perceived value. They buy all they can afford plus.
    FALSE. Buyer emotion doesn't matter at all to the lenders, not on the way up or on the way down. Most people will borrow as much as the possibly can. The limiting factor is lending, not emotion.
  34. It's unpatriotic to talk about mispriced houses. It might drive down prices.
    FALSE. Lower prices are better for America, especially for new families. Aren't lower food and energy prices better for America? Housing prices are the same: lower is better. Most Americans directly benefit by a decrease in house prices. Only the banks benefit from increased mortgage debt.If you own a house, lower prices have very little effect. If you want to sell and buy another house, higher prices mean you'll just have to pay more for the next house, while lower prices mean you will get a discount when you buy. If you want to buy a bigger house, you come out ahead with lower prices.
  35. My wife will divorce me if I don't buy a house.
    FALSE. She will divorce you if you do buy a house and go bankrupt trying to pay the mortgage. She won't divorce you if you rent a much nicer place than you can buy, and then take her to Paris for a month each spring, which you can do just by avoiding that suicidal mortgage.If she's religious, you could also point out Proverbs 22:7: "The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender."
  36. My new baby needs a house.
    FALSE. If you're pregnant and desperately want to buy a house for your new child, that's a perfectly normal feeling called "nesting". It is also the leading avoidable cause of financial fatalities! You most definitely do not need a house for a baby. A baby is utterly unaware of whether it lives in a rental or not. Babies also don't need much space.Your baby will do better if you're not stressed out about a mortgage. You have five years before school quality becomes an issue, and at that point you can more easily move into the best school district as a renter than as an owner. Avoid debt and save your money so your child has a better start in life.
  37. I just want to own my own house.
    TRUE, most people do. There's nothing wrong with that. Buyers will get their chance when housing costs half as much and they have saved a fortune by renting. House ownership is great - unless you ruin your life paying for it. If you can save even just 10% on the price of a house, you can retire several years earlier than you would otherwise. If you can save 50%, then you can easily take a ten year vacation and still come out ahead. Great quote from http://healdsburgbubble.blogspot.com/: "People want to buy a house, they want to have someone tell them it is the smartest decision they are making in their lives, and they don't want to hear about any downside risk."Housing is the biggest expense in nearly everyone's life, far more expensive than food, gas, energy, even more expensive than education or medicine. To reduce the time you spend working to pay for housing is to increase the time you have for everything else.
    Cheap housing is good for us all! High housing costs take away from families' ability to save for retirement, fund their children's education, travel and lead a quality life.
    How can we make lower house prices our official government policy? How can we completely eliminate the mortgage interest deduction which drives up housing costs and discriminates against renters? How can we wipe out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHA, and other agencies whose job it is to enslave Americans to mortgage debt?
    As reader Sean Olender put it: "Many people have forgotten that the number one restriction on their future freedom to do what they want, when they want, and to go where they want isn't the Iraqis, or Iranians, or North Koreans -- it's their mortgage lender."

What should you do?

First of all, both sides should avoid using agents, especially Realtors(R), who are corrupting our laws in Washington with lobbyists. Agents suck money out of the deal and monopolize the critical information of exactly how many bids there are and at what prices. Just find a property or buyer on your own, have the property inspected, and get a real estate lawyer to draw up or review the offer. If you make an offer, mail the offer to the seller yourself so that your agent or the seller's agent can't block it. If you are accepting or rejecting an offer, mail that information to the bidder yourself so that your agent or the bidder's agent can't block it. agent have been known to block offers that don't give their own agency both sides of the commission, or that exclude some other buyer they want to favor.
Never sign any contract with any agent! Agents try to trap you with a contract so that you cannot know for sure what is going on or make independent decisions. If you don't want to sell a house yourself or negotate a purchase, hire a lawyer or someone else by the hour to do the work for you. You're likely to save many thousands of dollars by avoiding commission fees.
Post on the patrick.net Addresses Forum to get uncensored feedback about a particular property.
If you own an expensive house, sell now so you can actually keep some of that funny money that appeared out of thin air. Otherwise, it will be painful to watch it vaporize back into thin air. Investors in mortgage-backed bonds subsidized the increase in the price of your house. Now they want their money back, and your challenge is to prevent them from getting it. The only way is to sell before your neighbors do. Time is not on your side.
If you can't sell without a loss, it's probably best to just walk away and free yourself from mortgage slavery. It depends on whether your loan was "recourse" or "non-recourse". In the latter case, the deal is simply that you can stop paying the loan and give back the house at any time. It's perfectly legal and moral according to the terms of the mortgage. Now that the government has temporarily stopped taxing forgiven debt, you can do it without owing anything! But talk to a lawyer and accountant first. If you refinanced, you may have given up your non-recourse status.
A long-term rental with a multiple-year lease is a good way to get stability with the economic benefits of renting. Many landlords are desperate, and you'll probably find them quite willing to negotiate a long term lease. Make sure they can't raise the rent much during the lease term, and make sure there is only a small penalty for ending the lease early. Even if you sign a normal 1-year lease, most landlords are happy to keep good tenants as long as possible.
If you want to buy, look around and see that house prices are falling. Why hurry to buy into a falling market? Time is on your side. Save your cash and buy for much less in the future. All your savings on the price of a house are tax-free earnings! For Californians: buy after the earthquake, not before.
Good advice from reader Stephen G. Bishop:
Signing a 30-year commitment is absurd. Can you guarantee your income will be uninterrupted for 30 years? It worked in the previous generation, when Dad worked at the same factory for 40 years and retired. Those days are gone. 80% of all mortgages are never kept to maturity. Triple the price of the property when you add interest for 30 years in. It's only worth it if the property doubles in value every ten years. Those days are gone.
Do not buy anything that wasn't built properly, no matter how cheap it gets. Many foreclosures are houses that weren't built properly, and these houses tend to be foreclosed over and over again. Lots of houses are ugly, but an ugly but well built house is often the best deal.
The way to win the game is to have cash on hand when others cannot get a loan. You do not want to be bidding your hard-earned savings against people who are bankrupting themselves with debt. It will be time to buy when lenders once again demand a 20% downpayment from everyone and get serious about checking ability to repay. You'll know prices are reasonable when it's cheaper to own than to rent the same thing. We're not there yet, not even close. Find a nice cheap rental, invest your savings every month, and enjoy the show till then.
Please tell friends about patrick.net, because people need to know the arguments against buying a house.

Distinct patrick.net readers per day

Plus about 4,500 email subscribers.
And a little comic relief (illustration courtesy of Rick LaForce, RickL@ci.union-city.ca.us)
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. 
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery.
--Charles Dickens, David Copperfield, 1849
Saying it is "good" for housing prices to rise is saying that it is good for housing to take an increasing share of salaries each year, forever. There's a limit, and it is somewhat shy of 100%. --Bryce Nesbitt
If you need a mortgage, you can't afford it. --Stephen G. Bishop
From anonymous: The Mexican Dream is to escape from debt peonage. The American Dream is to get into debt peonage.
Lowering interest rates will help the housing and stock market for about as long as peeing your pants will help when you have to go. It will give a warm feeling for a minute.
Everybody hates house-agents because they have everybody at a disadvantage. All other callings have a certain amount of give and take; the house agent simply takes. -- H. G. Wells
Nick Naylor, in Thank You For Smoking: "99% of everything done in the world, good or bad, is done to pay a mortgage. Perhaps the world would be a better place if everyone rented."
From The Politics of Life by Craig Crawford: "Beware the boss who encourages you to buy a house or new car. Mortgages and car payments enslave you to the paycheck that your boss controls."
From Benjamin Graham, in The Intelligent Investor: "The outright ownership of real estate has long been considered as a sound long-term investment, carrying with it a goodly amount of protection against inflation. Unfortunately, real estate values are also subject to large fluctuations; serious errors can be made in location, price paid, etc.; there are pitfalls in salesmens' wiles."
Why do the buy side idiots ALWAYS fall for the FALSE CHOICE FALLACY????
Choice 1: Buy today, right now, this second.
Choice 2: Rent until you die.
Um, I'll take door #3: let prices fall another couple hundred $K on a home
like this, and buy it in a year or two. What did I win?
--Roberto Aribas
What the public believes, or can be induced to believe, no matter how wrong, is reality to politicians.
Subsidies simply increase prices by increasing demand. Subsidies benefit the first few recipients, but the sellers quickly catch on to the new source of revenue and increase prices to negate that benefit for all subsequent recipients. Ultimately, all subsidies flow directly to businesses as excess profit at public expense. This is true especially for housing and health care subsidies, and the businesses that benefit from these subsidies spend lavishly on lobbying and campaign contributions to make sure the subsidies continue, in the name of the "public good" even though subsidies are obviously a public harm. The true solution to shortages is to increase supply of houses, doctors, or whatever. But increased supply harms profits, so business interests squash all public talk of increasing supply.
Republicans think the rich are not rich enough, and the poor are not poor enough.
Just as an unobserved tree falling in the forest makes no noise, a big beautiful home out in the lonely woods does little to increase status. The key to appreciating status is to have an audience-and there is no bigger audience than that of our major cities and the playgrounds of their wealthiest residents. -- John Talbott
They hang the man and flog the woman Who steals the goose from off the Common;
But let the greater criminal loose Who steals the Common from under the goose
Interest never sleeps nor sickens nor dies it never goes to the hospital; it works on Sundays and holidays; it never takes a vacation; it never visits nor travels; it takes no pleasure; it is never laid off work nor discharged from employment; it never works on reduced hours. Once in debt, interest is your companion every minute of the day and night; you cannot shun it or slip away from it; you cannot dismiss it; it yields neither to entreaties, demands, or orders; and whenever you get in its way or cross its course or fail to meet its demands, it crushes you. -- J. Reuben Clark
It is better to get a poor interest rate than own a depreciating asset. -- Michael Surkan
I'll repeat that the best approach [to buying a car] is to use the Internet, have the car delivered and avoid going to dealerships altogether. -- Edmunds.com
Everyone in Western Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, Singapore and New Zealand has a single-payer system. If they get sick, they can devote all their energies to getting well. If Americans get sick, they have to battle two things at once, the illness and the fear of financial ruin. ... And don't believe for a second that rot about America having the world's best medical care or the shortest waiting lists: I've been to hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Singapore, and Thailand, and every one was better than the "good" hospital I used to go to back home. The waits were shorter, the facilities more comfortable, and the doctors just as good. --Lance Freeman at escapefromamerica.com
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people
tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than
their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of
government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private
power. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
From Our Lot by Alyssa Katz: "The secret, he was learning, was to trigger buyers' emotions, specifically women's emotions."
50 Ways To Leave Your Mortgage
You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
I don't think I'll get married again. I'll just find a woman I don't like and give her a house. -- Lewis Grizzard
Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.
  



The End

Monday, March 28, 2011

O guia essencial dos Imóveis

28/01/2011 - 23:25 - ATUALIZADO EM 04/02/2011 - 16:08
O guia essencial dos Imóveis
Primeiro, os preços subiram, subiram, subiram. Depois, a alta perdeu força. E agora? É hora de comprar? De vender? ÉPOCA traz um roteiro completo para você se orientar no efervescente mercado imobiliário
JOSÉ FUCS
   Reprodução
Já fazia tempo que a economista Andrea, de 39 anos, e o engenheiro Marcio Dualibi, de 46, planejavam mudar de casa. Com dois filhos,o apartamento em que moravam, de 120 metros quadrados e três dormitórios, no bairro da Vila Leopoldina,Zona Oeste de São Paulo, estava pequeno. A ideia era comprar outro apartamento, de 170 metros quadrados num condomínio da região. No fim de 2007, quando surgiu um comprador oferecendo R$ 360 mil pelo imóvel deles, não hesitaram em vendê-lo, embora ainda faltassem R$ 70 mil para comprar o novo apartamento. Como os preços dos imóveis usados pareciam estáveis, decidiram adiar a compra e aplicar o dinheiro para tentar ganhar a diferença. E foram viver num apartamento alugado, ainda menor.
O resultado não foi o esperado. Os preços dos imóveis dispararam. Assustados, Andrea e Marcio sacaram o dinheiro do banco para tentar comprar o que fosse possível. Em agosto de 2008, fecharam negócio num apartamento em construção, de 140metros quadrados, numa rua menos valorizada do bairro. Pagaram R$ 460mil – R$ 100 mil a mais do que ganharam na venda do primeiro. Pagaram à vista, com desconto. Ainda assim, tiveram de vender um carro – um EcoSport do ano – e sacar o que tinham acumulado no Fundo de Garantia. O apartamento demorou dois anos e meio para ficar pronto, período em que precisaram pagar aluguel. Hoje, de acordo com Marcio, o apartamento que ele e Andrea venderam por R$360 mil vale R$ 550 mil, o preço do novo. E o apartamento que planejavam comprar, de R$ 450 mil, agora custa R$ 750 mil – uma alta de 66% em três anos. “Não era o que a gente queria”, diz Marcio. “Mas, depois de tanta confusão, não foi tão ruim.”
O drama vivido por Andrea e Marcio é reflexo da violenta explosão ocorrida nos preços dos imóveis nos últimos anos. É provável que em nenhum outro momento eles tenham subido tanto em tão pouco tempo. A valorização, maior aqui, menor ali, espalhou-se por todo o Brasil, das grandes metrópoles aos pequenos vilarejos de beira de estrada e à zona rural. O poder de compra de quem tinha um imóvel se manteve ou cresceu com a valorização. Mas quem ainda pretende comprar uma casa terá de se conformar, agora, em morar num lugar menos valorizado, como Andrea e Marcio, ou num imóvel menor do que poderia comprar alguns anos atrás. “Os preços estão lá em cima”, diz Luiz Paulo Pompéia, diretor da Empresa Brasileira de Estudos do Patrimônio (Embraesp), especializada em pesquisas imobiliárias. “Não sei aonde vão parar.”
Na atual onda de valorização, nem todo mundo foi pego de surpresa. Houve quem lucrou – e muito. Graças à alta dos imóveis, o Rio de Janeiro ganhou 60 mil novos milionários, segundo uma pesquisa do Secovi fluminense, a entidade que reúne os empresários do setor no Estado. São proprietários que, da noite para o dia, viram seus imóveis ultrapassar o valor de R$ 1 milhão e se tornaram uma espécie de novos-ricos do mercado. Muitos investidores aproveitaram para comprar imóveis na planta e revendê-los, com lucro. Mesmo quem não tinha capital para fazer isso sozinho conseguiu reunir amigos para investir – numa antiga prática que caíra em desuso e agora ressuscitou.
Até investidores estrangeiros, como Sam Zell, um magnata do mercado imobiliário americano, colheram lucros no Brasil, comprando fatias em grandes empresas do setor e se beneficiando da alta na Bolsa. Segundo uma pesquisa da Associação dos Investidores Estrangeiros em Imóveis, o Brasil ultrapassou a China e apareceu como o destino preferido em todo o mundo para negócios imobiliários, em 2011. “O pessoal diz que apenas 5% das vendas no país são feitas para investidores, que não estão comprando o imóvel para morar”, diz Pompéia. “Mas a parcela de investidores é bem maior.”
Como em qualquer mercado, a questão crucial não é saber quanto os preços já subiram, mas se eles ainda subirão mais – ou se cairão de repente. A alta já bateu no teto? Essa valorização é sustentável ou artificial? É hora de comprar? De vender? A seguir, apresentamos um breve roteiro para você se orientar no universo imobiliário. Não se trata de um trabalho exaustivo nem temos a pretensão de responder de modo conclusivo a todas as questões – que, no fundo, dependem de fatores incontroláveis. Esperamos, apenas, que nossas respostas ajudem cada um a tomar decisões melhores.
 Filipe Redondo
NO CONTRAPÉ
A economista Andrea, de 39 anos, e o engenheiro Marcio Dualibi, de 46, queriam comprar um apartamento de 170 m2, com três dormitórios, na Vila Leopoldina, na Zona Oeste de São Paulo, para morar com os dois filhos. Não conseguiram. O apartamento, que custava R$ 450 mil no fim de 2007, hoje vale R$ 750 mil. A aplicação que eles tinham no banco não acompanhou a valorização imobiliária. Em meados de 2008, acabaram comprando um apartamento em construção de 140 m2 numa rua menos valorizada da mesma região, também com três dormitórios, por R$ 460 mil. O imóvel, entregue em 2010, agora vale R$ 550 mil

1 - POR QUE O PREÇO SUBIU TANTO? Num estudo encomendado pela Abecip, entidade que reúne os bancos que atuam em crédito imobiliário, o economista José Roberto Mendonça de Barros, ex-secretário de Política Econômica no governo FHC, sustenta que a valorização dos imóveis é resultado de uma conjunção inédita de fatores. Primeiro, houve a consolidação da estabilidade econômica, que facilitou o planejamento de longo prazo. Mais recentemente houve um aumento do emprego e da renda, que ampliou a demanda por imóveis. A classe média, com 95 milhões de pessoas, tornou-se predominante. A renda da população, segundo o estudo, vem subindo na faixa de 6% ao ano acima da inflação – tendência que deverá ser mantida até 2014. “Mesmo que os preços subam, em média, 11% ao ano, o crescimento da renda poderá absorver o aumento”, diz Luiz Antonio França, presidente da Abecip.

reprodução/Revista Época
Além disso, o crédito imobiliário explodiu. De 2005 a 2010, ele cresceu 13 vezes, de R$ 4 bilhões para R$ 57 bilhões, de acordo com a Abecip. Os prazos dos financiamentos, antes restritos a dez ou 15 anos, agora chegam a 30 anos. “O país está perdendo o medo de financiar”, diz Fabio Nogueira, fundador e sócio da Brazilian Finance & Real Estate, que atua no financiamento ao consumidor e na captação de recursos para empresas do setor. Isso permitiu uma redução significativa nas prestações e reforçou ainda mais a demanda, já inflada pela carência de 6 milhões de moradias do país. Imóveis que exigiam comprovação de renda de R$ 4 mil mensais agora podem ser financiados por quem ganha R$ 1.500. E, nos imóveis de até R$ 500 mil, é possível usar o Fundo de Garantia do Tempo de Serviço (FGTS) para abater até 80% da prestação.
Os juros, embora ainda altos para os padrões globais, caíram bastante nos últimos anos – e devem cair mais no médio prazo, mesmo que subam um pouco em 2011. Essa queda levou a uma redução ainda maior das prestações e permitiu que o consumidor absorvesse o aumento de preços quase sem sentir. “Hoje, qualquer um consegue comprar um apartamento”, afirma o engenheiro Meyer Joseph Nigri, fundador e presidente da Tecnisa, uma das maiores construtoras do país. “Com R$ 100 por mês, compro um celular de R$ 1.000. Com R$ 500, compro um apartamento de R$ 100 mil.”
Foi graças a esse quadro favorável que brasileiros como o microempresário baiano Cleber Manoel Correia, de 44 anos, conseguiram comprar o primeiro imóvel em 2010 – no caso dele, um apartamento de R$ 330 mil, com 100 metros quadrados e três dormitórios, na Vila Laura, região central de Salvador. O imóvel, ainda em obras, só deverá ser entregue no fim de 2013. Mas Correia já conta os dias para se livrar de seu aluguel, de R$ 400. Casado, três filhos crescidos, dois dos quais moram com ele, ele deverá pagar 40 parcelas de R$ 830 e três parcelas intermediárias de R$ 6 mil, no total de R$ 51.200, durante a obra. Depois, diz que ainda decidirá com a mulher, Antonia, também de 44 anos, e seus filhos se reforçará a entrada para reduzir o valor do financiamento ou se financiará todo o saldo. “Antes, era complicado comprar um imóvel”, diz Bruno Correia, de 23 anos, o filho do meio, que ajuda o pai nos negócios e é o proprietário oficial do imóvel. “Agora, ficou muito mais fácil.”
Até os mais ricos estão recorrendo ao crédito. Muita gente está aproveitando para fazer um “upgrade”, dando o valor do imóvel atual como entrada. Segundo a imobiliária Coelho da Fonseca, de São Paulo, voltada para o público de alta renda, só 10% das vendas eram financiadas há três anos. Hoje, são 60%. “Acabou a história de que comprar imóvel financiado é para quem não tem dinheiro”, diz Walter Sita, diretor-geral de vendas da empresa. “Tem muito executivo tomando dinheiro na faixa de 10,5% ao ano para comprar imóveis de R$ 2 milhões, R$ 3 milhões, R$ 5 milhões em 20 ou 30 anos.”
A explosão dos preços é, portanto, resultado do aumento no crédito e na demanda. Em São Paulo, um levantamento da Embraesp mostra que o metro quadrado dos imóveis novos residenciais subiu 175%, em média, de 2000 até novembro do ano passado, último dado disponível. Só em 2010 a alta chegou a 32,8%, sem contar dezembro. Segundo a Global Property Guide, uma empresa britânica que pesquisa imóveis em todo o mundo, São Paulo ficaria em primeiro lugar no ranking dos países com a maior valorização imobiliária, com alta média de 33,5% em 12 meses (de outubro de 2009 a setembro de 2010). Em 24 meses, São Paulo também estaria no topo do pódio, com alta de 46,4% (leia os gráficos nas páginas 48 e 49). Os imóveis usados subiram um pouco menos, segundo uma pesquisa feita pelo Creci paulista com 529 imobiliárias locais. Mas, em alguns casos, eles também tiveram valorização espetacular. Um apartamento de 140 metros quadrados e três dormitórios em Perdizes, um bairro paulistano de classe média alta, foi vendido por R$ 320 mil há três anos. Hoje, vale R$ 650 mil, mais que o dobro, diz a ex-proprietária.
Boa parte da alta nos preços locais foi provocada, segundo Pompéia, da Embraesp, pela valorização dos terrenos. Ela teria ocorrido em razão da disputa entre as grandes construtoras e incorporadoras que abriram o capital e estavam com o caixa cheio. Segundo João Batista Crestana, presidente do Secovi de São Paulo, o preço do terreno representava 20% do custo de um empreendimento até há pouco tempo. Agora, chega a 50%, conforme a localização – mesmo levando em conta que mão de obra e material de construção também subiram. “Quando as empresas abriram o capital, houve uma correria escandalosa por terrenos para futuros investimentos”, afirma José Augusto Viana Neto, presidente do Creci paulista. O cenário de São Paulo repetiu-se em todo o país:
- no Rio de Janeiro, pelos dados do Secovi fluminense, o preço de um apartamento de dois quartos em Copacabana aumentou 220% entre 2000 e 2009;
- em Brasília, segundo a Associação dos Dirigentes de Empresas do Mercado Imobiliário (Ademi), o metro quadrado teve alta média anual de 25% desde 2005;
- em Salvador, o preço do metro quadrado no bairro de Alphaville, um dos mais valorizados, subiu 54% desde 2007;
- no campo, o preço das terras aumentou, em média, 42% nos últimos três anos em todo o país, de acordo com a Agroconsult, uma consultoria de agronegócio. 

 Filipe Redondo
ENFIM, A CASA PRÓPRIA
O microempresário baiano Bruno Nascimento Correia, de 23 anos, conseguiu comprar o primeiro imóvel no ano passado graças a um financiamento de longo prazo. O imóvel, de 100 metros quadrados e três dormitórios, na Vila Laura, perto do aeroporto em Salvador, só deverá ser entregue no fim de 2013. Mas ele já conta os dias para se ver livre do aluguel de R$ 400 que paga hoje para morar com a mãe, Antônia, o pai, com quem ele trabalha, e o irmão mais novo. “Antes era complicado comprar um imóvel”, afirma. “Agora, ficou muito mais fácil”
2 - A ALTA CHEGOU AO FIM? Nos últimos meses, depois de cinco anos de alta, surgiram sinais de acomodação no mercado. Segundo uma pesquisa do Secovi de São Paulo, o volume de vendas dos imóveis novos em relação à oferta teve uma ligeira queda, de 26,4% do total, em setembro, para 23,5%, em outubro, último dado disponível. Outro levantamento, do Creci paulista, entidade que congrega os corretores, mostrou queda de 25% no número de imóveis usados vendidos no Estado em outubro. Dados mais recentes mostram que as vendas voltaram a subir, mas não o suficiente para retomar o nível de agosto. E, segundo o Sinduscon, o sindicato da indústria da construção civil, o setor deverá crescer “apenas” 6% em 2011, a metade de 2010. “Já houve uma boa valorização e está na hora de tomar algum cuidado”, diz o economista Júlio Sérgio Gomes de Almeida, ex-secretário de Política Econômica no governo Lula e ex-diretor do Instituto de Estudos para o Desenvolvimento Empresarial (Iedi).
No mercado imobiliário, é crescente a percepção de que os preços podem estar próximos do teto permitido pela renda do consumidor. “O bolso é o limite – e esse limite está perto”, afirma Crestana, do Secovi paulista. Mesmo assim, a previsão é de que ainda haja espaço para novas altas por causa da forte demanda e da saturação nas grandes cidades. Não se espera, porém, que se repita o que ocorreu nos últimos anos. A exceção seriam as áreas de alto padrão, onde bons terrenos são raridade, como a Praça Pereira Coutinho, na Vila Nova Conceição, em São Paulo, ou o bairro do Leblon, no Rio de Janeiro. “Muitos investidores apostam que os preços subirão mais, mas não sabemos. Já tem gente com medo de não vender o que construir”, diz Pompéia, da Embraesp.
Os preços ainda estão baixos, se comparados aos do exterior. Segundo França, da Abecip, o metro quadrado de um imóvel novo no Brasil custa US$ 1.600. Em Nova York, US$ 16 mil; em Paris, US$ 13 mil; em Madri, US$ 3.400; e na Cidade do México, US$ 1.800. Mas a expectativa é que, se houve excessos, o próprio mercado se ajustará, de acordo com a oferta e a demanda. “Ninguém vai lançar um imóvel a um preço em que não haja demanda”, diz Antonio Carlos Ferreira, diretor superintendente da construtora e incorporadora Gafisa. “Pode ofertar, mas não vai vender.”
A questão é que é muito difícil fazer uma avaliação precisa. Hoje, a maior parte das pesquisas sobre os imóveis no Brasil tem um enfoque regional e está centrada no número de lançamentos e na velocidade de vendas, não nos preços. Há pouquíssimas pesquisas de preços. E, quando elas existem, cobrem só uma cidade ou uma região metropolitana. Ao contrário de outros países, o Brasil não tem um índice nacional de valorização dos imóveis. Isso preocupa o Banco Central e o Ministério da Fazenda, que pediram ajuda aos bancos para desenvolver um novo indicador. Ele é crucial. Basta lembrar que a atual crise financeira global surgiu com o estouro de uma bolha imobiliária nos Estados Unidos – e ninguém quer ser acusado de ter permitido a repetição do problema aqui. “Estamos tentando formatar esse índice para ter uma informação rica sobre a valorização imobiliária no país”, diz França, da Abecip. “Ele deverá nortear as decisões de governo, agentes financeiros, empresas e até investidores.” 
3 - HÁ UMA BOLHA IMOBILIÁRIA? Não. Entre os profissionais que atuam na área, a visão predominante é que o mercado brasileiro vive um ciclo virtuoso, capaz de se prolongar por muitos anos. A desaceleração recente seria passageira. Como num jogral bem ensaiado, a maioria rejeita qualquer insinuação de que, no Brasil, exista uma bolha imobiliária similar à que ocorreu nos EUA e em outros países. O estudo coordenado pelo economista Mendonça de Barros também sustenta enfaticamente a tese de que não há uma bolha imobiliária em formação no país. Aqui estaria havendo um processo saudável de crescimento do setor, que ficou estagnado por muito tempo. Lá fora, a valorização era turbinada pelo crédito fácil e pela expectativa irreal de que os preços subiriam sem parar. No Brasil, ela estaria baseada numa demanda sólida e em critérios rígidos para a concessão de financiamentos. Nos EUA, o crédito chegava a 110% do valor do imóvel, sem comprovação de renda. Aqui, os bancos financiam, no máximo, 80% do total. “O cenário é espetacular”, diz Nigri, da Tecnisa. “A sensação é que estamos no começo da festa, não no fim.”
No Brasil, os preços dos imóveis também não se descolaram dos outros ativos, como no exterior. A valorização estaria apenas compensando o período em que eles subiram menos que as demais aplicações, nos anos 90 e na primeira metade dos anos 2000. Num período de dez anos, os imóveis ainda ofereceram um ganho menor que a Bolsa e outras aplicações. “Fazia tempo que os preços não se moviam, até por causa dos juros altos”, diz José Roberto Machado, diretor de crédito imobiliário do banco Santander.
O setor imobiliário também deverá ser beneficiado pela demografia, de acordo com um estudo das consultorias Ernst & Young e FGV Projetos. A população brasileira, hoje na faixa de 190 milhões, deverá chegar a 234 milhões em 2030. O número de famílias deverá passar de 60 milhões para 95,5 milhões – 1,8 milhão a mais por ano. E a idade média da população, hoje de 29 anos, vai subir para 36. A faixa de 25 anos ou mais, onde se concentram os compradores de imóveis, aumentará de 36% para 42% do total.
Não é de estranhar, portanto, o otimismo de quem trabalha no setor. “Eu achava que não veria isso acontecer – e tinha dúvidas se meus filhos veriam”, afirma Ubirajara Spessotto, de 50 anos, diretor-geral da Cyrela, outro gigante dos imóveis no país. “Estou há 33 anos no mercado imobiliário e nunca tinha visto nada igual. Nos anos 80, todo mundo corria para os imóveis para se proteger da inflação. Agora, o mercado está subindo com lógica e consistência”, diz Nigri, da Tecnisa. 
4 - HÁ RISCO DE QUE SE FORME UMA BOLHA IMOBILIÁRIA? Sim. Embora concorde que não há uma bolha em formação no país, o economista Júlio Sérgio Gomes de Almeida diz que o governo deve ficar atento para evitar que o atual boom imobiliário se transforme numa bolha. Ele afirma que, com a perspectiva de novas quedas dos juros nos próximos anos, poderá haver uma nova valorização dos imóveis. “Há a impressão de que um crescimento rápido do setor só tem pontos positivos – e não é verdade. Uma bolha entorpece a visão, como um lança-perfume. Mas, na hora da verdade, não pede licença para entrar.”
Em sua opinião, o Brasil é propenso à formação de uma bolha imobiliária porque o brasileiro em geral é consumista, o sistema bancário é ágil e as construtoras são capazes. Para ele, os políticos tendem a resistir à adoção de medidas que afetem o crescimento de um setor que gera empregos e tem forte impacto na economia. “Todo mundo pode achar que a valorização dos imóveis é insustentável, mas os políticos podem não querer interrompê-la porque é fonte de voto, os sindicatos também não, porque é fonte de emprego, e as empresas e os bancos também não, porque é fonte de lucro.”
   Reprodução   Reprodução
Nos EUA, foi a política populista oficial, centrada na ideia de que a casa própria deve ser acessível a todos, que inflou a bolha imobiliária que jogou o país (e o mundo) na maior crise econômica desde a depressão dos anos 1930. Uma série de medidas adotadas pelo governo americano, com o apoio do Congresso, estimulou o crédito a um número cada vez maior de compradores, mesmo a quem não tinha como comprovar renda para pagar as prestações. As agências financeiras Fannie Mae e Freddie Mac, subsidiadas pelo governo, receberam incentivos para comprar dos bancos um volume cada vez maior de financiamentos para as faixas de menor renda. Isso levou os bancos a mudar o perfil dos mutuários para conseguir repassar suas carteiras às duas agências. Resultado: a demanda por imóveis explodiu, os preços subiram – e muitos mutuários se deram conta de que não poderiam honrar as prestações.
A inadimplência aumentou. A retomada de imóveis por falta de pagamento também. Ao mesmo tempo, a demanda perdeu força. Os preços, que haviam quadruplicado em dez anos, começaram a cair, afetando o valor das garantias bancárias. Ficou complicado para os bancos rolar no mercado a papelada lastreada nas hipotecas. As agências Fannie Mae e Freddie Mac só não quebraram porque sofreram intervenção do governo. Calcula-se que, no total, as duas instituições custarão US$ 400 bilhões em dinheiro dos contribuintes. “O maior engano é achar que a crise no mercado imobiliário aconteceu por falta de regulação”, diz o economista Thomas Sowell, da Universidade Stanford, autor do livro The housing boom and bust (O boom da casa própria e a crise). “Foi justamente a ação do governo que levou ao relaxamento dos padrões de avaliação de risco dos bancos e à venda de casas para muita gente que não podia pagar.”
Guardadas as proporções, esse é o risco que ronda o programa Minha Casa Minha Vida, lançado pelo governo federal em 2009. Restrito a bancos oficiais, como Caixa Econômica Federal e Banco do Brasil, ele oferece subsídio para a casa própria de famílias com renda de até dez salários mínimos. Também prevê a redução de impostos para a produção de imóveis destinados às faixas de menor renda. Quem ganha até três salários mínimos deve pagar uma prestação a partir de R$ 50 e de, no máximo, até 10% da renda familiar, por um prazo de dez anos.
Por trás da causa nobre, os problemas que aconteceram nos EUA já começaram a se repetir por aqui. Em Feira de Santana, na Bahia, no primeiro empreendimento do Minha Casa Minha Vida à população, a inadimplência está alta, pois boa parte dos moradores ganha apenas o benefício do Bolsa Família. O calote preocupa o governo. Há o receio de que isso se repita em outros locais. No conjunto habitacional de Feira, que recebeu duas visitas do então presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva e foi apresentado como modelo no programa de TV da presidenta Dilma Rousseff na campanha eleitoral, houve a venda ilegal de dezenas de unidades pelos moradores originais. “Todos os apartamentos irregularmente vendidos serão retomados, como prevê o contrato”, diz uma nota conjunta divulgada pela Caixa e pelos ministérios do Planejamento e das Cidades, responsáveis pela execução e fiscalização do programa.
Talvez o maior problema do Minha Casa Minha Vida tenha sido o impacto perverso que ele teve nos preços dos terrenos nas periferias das grandes cidades. Já ficou difícil produzir unidades para baixa renda dentro do limite do programa, de até R$ 130 mil. O mercado já reivindica um aumento para “destravar” a produção. A presidenta Dilma anunciou que atenderá ao pleito. Espera-se que o reajuste eleve o teto para algo entre R$ 150 mil e R$ 170 mil – um aumento de 15% a 30% em apenas dois anos. “O próprio governo está estimulando a alta no preço dos terrenos com os subsídios do Minha Casa Minha Vida”, diz Viana Neto, do Creci.
Segundo o economista Gomes de Almeida, o governo deveria criar, desde já, mecanismos para restringir o crédito imobiliário e conter a demanda, caso a valorização continue em ritmo acelerado. Uma opção seria aumentar a exigência de capital para os bancos fazerem empréstimos na área. Outras seriam aumentar o valor mínimo da entrada ou reduzir os prazos de financiamento. “O importante é ter cartas na manga para poder virar o jogo.” Na China, onde é maior o temor de bolha imobiliária, os preços subiram bem menos que no Brasil nos últimos anos. Isso não impediu as autoridades de tomar medidas para conter o crédito, como a adoção de restrições para uma segunda hipoteca.
Os gargalos do setor impedem um aumento significativo da oferta no curto prazo
No fim de 2008, o Brasil teve uma amostra do que pode ocorrer numa situação como essa. A crise global se aprofundou e afetou o setor imobiliário aqui. Da noite para o dia, a demanda por imóveis murchou. Grandes construtoras e incorporadoras com estoques elevados de terrenos e apartamentos tiveram problemas. Houve várias fusões. “As curvas de venda daquele período eram aterrorizantes”, afirma Nogueira, da Brazilian Finance. Pouco depois, porém, a economia se recuperou, a confiança do consumidor voltou e as vendas cresceram de novo, eliminando os temores de uma crise mais grave na área.
No mercado imobiliário, fala-se muito sobre a força da demanda, mas muito pouco sobre a carência da oferta. Por mais ágeis e eficientes que sejam as empresas do setor, elas não têm como absorver a demanda atual. Embora a produção de novas unidades tenha crescido significativamente, a oferta ainda é bem menor que a procura. Segundo Spessotto, da Cyrela, seria necessário lançar 90 mil unidades por ano só na Grande São Paulo apenas para compensar o crescimento vegetativo da população, estimado em 1,5% ao ano. O recorde de produção, de 2007, é de 69 mil unidades. Em 2010, a oferta não passou de 65 mil unidades. Na capital paulista, o estoque de imóveis novos, que chegava a 22 mil unidades, em média, em 2005, agora não passa de 10 mil. Isso favorece o aumento do lucro das empresas do setor. Mas provoca uma tremenda inflação no preço dos imóveis, como a dos últimos anos. “A oferta está chegando, mas não em volume suficiente”, diz Antonio Guedes, diretor-geral da Living, empresa do grupo Cyrela voltada para a faixa de menor renda. “O pessoal está pagando quanto pedem. Isso não é bom para o país”, afirma Viana Neto, do Creci.
Ainda que as empresas quisessem aumentar a oferta, isso não seria possível por causa dos gargalos no setor. Falta de tudo: mão de obra qualificada (de pedreiro a engenheiro), máquinas e até material de construção. Há construtoras e incorporadoras criando “universidades corporativas” e montando programas de treinamento para formar trabalhadores. “Hoje a indústria da construção tem dificuldade para fazer seus projetos virar oferta”, diz Cristiane Amaral, sócia da Ernst & Young, especializada na área.
Os bancos dizem que o aumento do crédito não deveria ser visto como problema. De acordo com eles, os financiamentos imobiliários no Brasil ainda equivalem a apenas 4% do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB). No Chile, chegam a 15%. Nos EUA e na Espanha, a 60%. Mas, conforme a velocidade de expansão, pode haver desequilíbrio se a produção não crescer no mesmo ritmo. “Se os juros caírem no médio prazo, levando a um aumento nos financiamentos, o governo terá de agir”, diz Gomes de Almeida.
Há, ainda, outro ponto importante. No ritmo atual de aumento do crédito, os recursos da caderneta de poupança, hoje a principal fonte de financiamento imobiliário, deverão se esgotar até 2013. Até lá será preciso buscar novas fontes para financiar a produção de novos empreendimentos e os empréstimos aos compradores. “Não dá para depender só de uma fonte”, diz França, da Abecip. “Precisamos criar novas formas de captação para girar o estoque de financiamentos”, afirma Ana Maria Castelo, pesquisadora da FGV Projetos.
Se o mercado imobiliário esfriar, os temores de superaquecimento poderão se dissolver. Só que isso pode não acontecer. O mais prudente é não ignorar os avisos. Um mercado imobiliário dinâmico é indispensável para o Brasil continuar a crescer com vigor – e ninguém quer abortar esse processo. Mas isso não pode levar à formação de uma bolha com alto potencial de destruição. A crise imobiliária nos EUA e em outros países deixou lições preciosas para o Brasil não cair na mesma armadilha.
reprodução/Revista Época
reprodução/Revista Época
reprodução/Revista Época