Herding behavior and real estate decisions

Have you ever wondered why real estate trends develop? When we’re buying and selling a home, we like to think we act rationally and with intention. However, our decision making is influenced externally. We are affected by the attitudes of the experts, family and friends, from whom we solicit advice. We are also consciously and unconsciously influenced by information we get from TV, the internet, social media, news papers, and even from eavesdropping conversations. Your decision making may be based on others’ behaviors that signaled it was the correct thing to do, and in turn magnifies and strengthens the signal to others – which is described as herding behavior.

Herding behavior plays a large role in our daily lives, as well as in our real estate choices and conclusions. Decisions about home buying and selling, which agent to hire, sales prices, and even whether or not we should default on our mortgage can be influenced by herding behaviors.

A 2013 study of herding behavior in strategic default revealed significant findings about our vulnerability to information (Luchtenberg & Seiler (2013).The effect of exogenous information signal strength on herding. Review of Behavioral Finance, 5(2),153-174). To refresh your memory, strategic default (allowing a home to go to foreclosure when financially able to pay the mortgage) became a significant trend that was widely covered in the media during 2010-2012. Luchtenberg & Seiler’s research into decision making and herding behavior suggested that those who are susceptible to information can be easily swayed. Their findings among professionals revealed that low consensus information (“weak information signals”) caused herding when asked to make a personal choice; while high consensus information (“strong information signals”) caused herding when providing advice to a friend.

The notion that the housing and financial crises were caused by herding behavior is not new. However, economist Christian Hott researched if housing bubbles are caused by herding behavior (Hott, C. (2012). The influence of herding behaviour on house prices. Journal of European Real Estate Research, 5(3),177-198). Citing others, Hott explains that herding behaviors are formed by those who are “imperfectly informed” and “learn from the decisions” of others; and that people tend to “overestimate the likelihood of an event” to occur to them when they hear it happened to someone else (expecting the same experience that someone else had). Although Hott concluded that herding was not the only contributor to the housing market collapse, and suggested that mortgage banking was also likely responsible; the findings indicated that herding behavior does play a role in home price fluctuations and housing bubbles.

Cognitive dissonance may also be at work to reinforce your herding behaviors. You may act on information that is not widely acknowledged just because the source is significant to you (such as a relative, close friend or co-worker). And the stronger your belief in the information, the more likely you will in turn confidently give the same advice to others, even though it may be inaccurate and/or irrational.

Breaking away from the herd is difficult; buying and selling a home may not seem to be a rational process – even when confronted with facts. People don’t always base decision of logical choices, but rather base decisions on psycho-emotional needs and/or fears (such as status, acceptance, and avoidance of failure). However, seeking balanced information and becoming aware of your motivations may improve your decision making.

Original published at https://dankrell.com/blog/2015/09/30/herding-behavior-can-interfere-with-real-estate-decisions/

Google+
Copyright © Dan Krell

If you like this post, do not copy; you can:
reference the article,
like it at facebook
or re-tweet.

Disclaimer. This article is not intended to provide nor should it be relied upon for legal and financial advice. Readers should not rely solely on the information contained herein, as it does not purport to be comprehensive or render specific advice. Readers should consult with an attorney regarding local real estate laws and customs as they vary by state and jurisdiction. Using this article without permission is a violation of copyright laws.

September 24, 2015November 23, 2021

Can we really see negative mortgage rates?

Some speculate that it is possible for the Fed to set negative rates to stave off deflation; something that happened in Europe earlier this year.

Can you believe that 30-year fixed rate conventional mortgage rates have been below 5% for about five years? Rates have essentially been hovering around 4% (plus/minus) for the last three years. To put it in perspective, you’d probably have to go back to the 1940’s to get a lower rate. To contrast, rates from 1979 through the 1980’s were in double digits; and according to Freddie Mac’s Monthly Average Commitment Rate And Points On 30-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgages Since 1971 (freddiemac.com), the average mortgage commitment rate reached a peak of 18.45% during October of 1981.

With such low rates, it’s hard to imagine signing up for a mortgage at 18%, or 10%, or even 7% interest. Keep in mind that the consensus is that the average mortgage rate over the last forty years has been about 8.75%. And as economists have anticipated rising rates since 2011, rates have actually decreased.

Many thought that Fed would finally begin to raise the federal funds rate towards the end of this year. However, an interesting thing happened last week from probably the most anticipated Fed meeting ever. On September 17^th, the Fed’s Open Market Committee issued a statement on the economy and monetary policy, and left the federal funds rate unchanged at a target rate of 0% to 1/4%. Although mortgage rates are not directly influenced by the federal funds rate, they are indirectly affected because the federal funds rate is the rate in which banks borrow money.

Initially it appears to be good news from the Fed’s September 17^th press release, housing was described as improving, and it is felt that mortgage rates will likely to remain relatively low for the short term. However, in a press conference following the Fed statement, Fed Chair Janet Yellen referred to housing as “depressed.” Depressed is certainly not the description that anyone was expecting of a housing market that has seen slow improvement. Yet, it’s not the first time Yellen expressed concern for housing; she raised concerns about a housing market slowdown last year.

Should we also be concerned when others are optimistic? Maybe Yellen sees something that we do not. An August 16^th 2013 Washington Post piece by Neil Irwin and Ylan Q. Mui details Yellen’s background and how she predicted the housing crisis and forecasted the following financial crisis (Janet Yellen called the housing bust and has been mostly right on jobs. Does she have what it takes to lead the Fed?). It’s not that Yellen is clairvoyant, as far as anyone knows, but rather her ability to connect the correct data points. In last week’s press conference she cited that housing was basically not improving in step with other economic indicators, such as employment.

So when will interest rates go up? Some speculate that it is possible for the Fed to set negative rates to stave off deflation; something that happened in Europe earlier this year. And in a couple of European counties, such as Spain, you could get a negative interest mortgage! CNN-Money reported on European negative interest rates, quoting Luca Bertalot (secretary general of the European Mortgage Federation) to say “We are in uncharted waters.” And described Spain’s Bankinter’s negative interest rate dilemma, saying that “they could not pay interest to borrowers, but instead reduced the principal for some customers (The crazy world of negative rates: Banks pay your mortgage for you?; money.cnn.com, April 22, 2015).”

Google+
Copyright © Dan Krell

If you like this post, do not copy; you can:
reference the article,
like it at facebook
or re-tweet.

August 21, 2015September 1, 2019

Homeowners do better than renters

Many years ago, buying your first home used to be a rite of passage that usually coincided with starting a family. Your first home was not just a place to live; but was considered an investment that was expected to grow and provide a “nest egg” for your later years.

Several generations later, a lot has changed. We view investments differently, and have become amateur number crunchers trying to get the most of our money. But what was once considered a sound long term investment has now been deemed as poor judgment.

Of course to real estate investors, housing is a commodity; they take risks to reap rewards. Short term real estate investors (“flippers”) are often viewed as opportunists, buying homes at a discount and selling at retail value. The flipper’s goal is to have a quick turnaround between the time of acquisition and resale (flip), avoiding as much carrying cost as possible. The risk for the flipper is very high, especially in fickle markets; but the payoff can be very rewarding. It is not unusual for a flipper to lose money on a project because of delays, unexpected costs, and/or poor timing.

Long term real estate investors acquire homes to be used as rental properties, banking on the properties’ appreciation when it comes time to sell. Although the financial reward for this investor is long term, the risk is considered to be leveraged over time as well. However, unexpected costs and loss of rent can make such an investor rethink their plan and cut their losses.

For the rest of us, however; housing may not be such a great investment after all, according to many financial pundits. One such pundit, Morgan Housel (of Motley Fool fame), wrote about his meeting with Robert Shiller (of Case-Shiller fame) to give some telling insight about home values (Why your home is not a good investment; usatoday.com; May 10, 2014). Shiller told Housel that the housing market is “a provider of housing services” and “not a good provider of capital gains.”

According to Shiller, home prices from 1890 to 1990 (adjusted for real inflation) are “virtually unchanged.” Housel further added that home prices between 1890 and 2012, adjusted for real inflation, “went nowhere;” and decreased 10% from 1890 to 1980, when adjusted for real inflation. Shiller even suggested that “real” home prices could decrease over the next 30 years, due to a number of factors including obsolescence and advances in construction techniques.

With all the stats and figures, are those who touted the investment value of long term home ownership – wrong? Not necessarily. The consensus is that home ownership offers stability as well as many other benefits including: a place to live, a place to raise a family, and belonging to a community. These intangibles may be responsible for the research conclusions by Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, that indicated there is an association between home ownership and growing wealth; where home owners fared better than renters (Herbert, McCue, and Sanchez-Moyano; Is Homeownership Still an Effective Means of Building Wealth for Low-income and Minority Households? Was it Ever? Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University, September 2013).

Is buying a home a bad investment? Housel pointed out that even Robert Shiller owns a home, and (at the time of the interview) indicated he would buy a home if he were in the market.

by Dan Krell
Copyright © 2015

If you like this post, do not copy; you can:
reference the article,
like it at facebook
or re-tweet.

Protected by Copyscape Web Plagiarism Detector

August 7, 2015July 7, 2019

Radon is everywhere – not just in your home

A recent bill introduced in the County Council local to me reminded me of a column I wrote almost ten years ago about radon. In line with some other “consumer oriented” bills adding burdens on the home seller, Montgomery County Council Bill 31-15 has home sellers conducting radon tests and providing the results along with estimates to reduce actionable levels before entering into a sales contract.

According to the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (montgomerycountymd.gov/dep): “Radon is an invisible, radioactive gas created during the natural breakdown of uranium in rocks and soils. It is found in nearly all soils. Radon typically moves up through the ground and into homes and buildings through cracks and other holes in the foundation, although there are other radon sources.” Radon is naturally occurring and everywhere; however, it becomes problematic when the gas builds up in enclosed areas. If your Montgomery County home was built after 1995, chances are that you already have a passive radon mitigation system built in, as required by code. However, a passive system may not be enough, and older active systems may need additional venting as radon concentrations may change over time. The only way to know if there is a radon problem in your home is to test for it.

In January 2005, then Surgeon General Richard Carmona issued a warning on radon (surgeongeneral.gov/news/2005), saying: “Indoor radon gas is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States and breathing it over prolonged periods can present a significant health risk to families all over the country. It’s important to know that this threat is completely preventable. Radon can be detected with a simple test and fixed through well-established venting techniques.“

According to the Maryland Department of the Environment’s “Radon Gas” fact sheet (mde.maryland.gov), home owners in all counties and Baltimore City have reported high levels of radon in their home. Some have reported test results that indicated levels of 200 picocuries per liter, which is 50 times the EPA action level. The risk of lung cancer spending a lifetime in a home where the radon level is 10 picocuries/liter is similar to smoking a pack of cigarettes per day.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency offers a “Home Buyer’s and Seller’s Guide to Radon” (epa.gov/radon/pubs/hmbyguid.html). Testing is relatively easy. There are two types of tests: Passive testing devices are not powered and are sent to a lab for analysis after exposure (these devices can be purchased at most hardware stores); Active testing devices are powered and continuously measure and record the amount of radon decay in the air (these devices can detect test interference). The EPA recommends taking action when existing radon levels are at 4 picocuries per liter or higher; however, exiting levels between 2 to 4 picocuries per liter may still pose a risk.

Although most warnings we hear about radon refers to our homes, actionable levels of radon can exist in any building – public or private. According to the EPA, a nationwide survey of radon levels in schools revealed that 1 in 5 has at least one schoolroom in use with radon above the action level of 4 picocuries per liter (epa.gov/radon/pubs/schoolrn.html). Former National PTA President Kathryn Whitfill was quoted to say, “EPA’s national survey of schools produced some alarming results about concentrations in our children’s classrooms. Public awareness must be raised about the hazards of radon…All schools must be tested to determine if there is a problem, and schools must inform parents of the results. We cannot ignore this problem.”

By Dan Krell
Copyright © 2015

If you like this post, do not copy; you can:
reference the article,
like it at facebook
or re-tweet.

July 23, 2015May 21, 2019

Bait and switch tactics by real estate agents

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC.gov) states in its Advertising FAQ’s: A Guide for Small Business, “It’s illegal to advertise a product when the company has no intention of selling that item, but instead plans to sell a consumer something else, usually at a higher price…”, when describing “bait and switch” advertising.

The term “bait and switch” is sometimes bandied about by disgruntled consumers, when referring to their encounters with real estate agents. Although the scenarios depicted by the annoyed consumers require legal scrutiny to determine if the situations meet the definition of bait and switch as described by the FTC, it makes you wonder about what some agents are doing and/or saying to get business.

Bait and switch complaints are often about homes that are advertised for rent or sale, but are found to be off market after calling agent. These listings are often the result of listing syndication gone awry; or worse, “scraped” listing information (Internet scraping is when website data is taken and collected, often without authorization) reposted by an unauthorized website to attract traffic away from the website of origin.

Scraped listing information can float around cyberspace for months or years after a home has sold. Although there has always been an element of out of date listing information found on the internet; sham listings and unauthorized postings of listings used to lure consumers, are frequently cited by both consumers and agents because the information is often misleading or incorrect. And although some responsibility may be placed on the workings of the internet; some real estate agents may be to blame for using questionable advertising practices to get their phone ringing to attract home buyers. Such practices include: advertising other agents’ listings as their own, or advertising homes that are off the market.

The MLS syndicates and distributes home listing information across the internet to authorized websites, and updates the listings to maintain accuracy and integrity of the MLS. Although the internet seemed to coalesce for a brief time to present reliable home listings and other real estate information, while deterring scammers and rogue websites; the recent surge in home sales and other economics may be responsible for a return to a “wild west” atmosphere in cyberspace. This year’s reshuffling of MLS data access to major real estate portals, forcing some sites to find missing information elsewhere, is likely to have added some confusion.

Home buyers aren’t the only ones complaining; as some home sellers have similar complaints, saying they’ve been misled. Sometimes the complaint is that their agent “promised” a high sale price, only to be coerced to reduce the price at a later time; or the agent over-promised services that were never delivered.

It must be said that many buyer and seller complaints stem from their dissatisfaction, rather than an actual breach of ethics; and yet many legitimate ethical breaches go unreported. Regardless, it is unfortunate that some real estate agents resort to questionable sales tactics to attract buyers and sellers; and either learn the tactics from real estate trainers, and/or develop them on their own and share with other agents. Even though a Realtors® Code of Ethics exists to guide professional behavior and business practices, some have a “catch me if you can” attitude.

Due diligence, on your part, can make your home buying or selling experience increasingly trouble free and more enjoyable.

Original published at https://dankrell.com/blog/2015/07/23/bait-and-switch-tactics-by-real-estate-agents/

By Dan Krell

If you like this post, do not copy; you can:
reference the article,
like it at facebook
or re-tweet.