Austin Ranks 3rd for Fastest Recovering cities:
Real Estate
America's Fastest-Recovering Cities
Francesca Levy, 11.19.09, 4:00 PM ET
Though Omaha, Neb., seems second-rate to some, Warren Buffett may have been on to something when he chose it for the headquarters of his massive holding company, Berkshire Hathaway. According to our research, the city has hit upon a formula to weather the economic downturn better than any other in the country.
While no region has escaped the recession, in Omaha, three Texas metros, a handful of Northeastern manufacturing bases and select southern cities, diversified industry and relatively stable housing fundamentals have provided local residents with comparatively secure standards of living.
Omaha has had a healthy 1.3% gross metropolitan product (GMP) growth in the past year, and a low foreclosure rate (only one in every 3,246 housing units is in foreclosure), but it sails to the top spot on our list because of its unemployment rate: At 5%, the lowest of the metros we surveyed. Omaha's economy is less dependent on manufacturing than other Midwestern cities, and is boosted by a strong agriculture sector and growing biofuels industry. And while the city has a big stake in the financial industry--a factor that nearly spelled ruin for metros like New York--it doesn't specialize in the types of institutions that took big risks and chased exotic financial structures. Instead, it's home to roughly 30 insurance companies and regional banks like Mutual of Omaha.
Lone Star Luck
In No. 2 city San Antonio, home to four military bases, and Austin, our third-ranked city and the state seat of government, municipal jobs supplement Texas' robust energy sector. In Dallas (No. 6), it's a thriving tech industry that buffers it from energy highs and lows. Although Houston (No. 8) is invested mostly in oil, it has diversified its energy industry beyond oil rigs into refining and chemicals manufacturing.
Full List: America's Fastest-Recovering Cities
What's more, the state's housing prices never ascended to the unsustainable levels the rest of the country hit at the peak of the housing bubble. Thus, it didn't crash as hard. These factors have toughened the local economy against a recession that is inextricably tied to real estate.
"Texas didn't have as big of a boom," says James P. Gaines, research economist at the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University. "So we're not having anywhere near the kind of bust."
Behind the Numbers
To form our list, we ranked the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas--geographic entities that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines and uses in collecting statistics--in five categories: unemployment rate, GMP (a measure of the size of a city's economy), foreclosures, home prices and sales rates.
We ranked September unemployment rates (the most recent available by metro) using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; the percentage of a metro's homes in foreclosure with September data provided by RealtyTrac; and the change in GMP between the first and second quarter of 2009 from the Brookings Institution's MetroMonitor. We also included the second-quarter 2009 year-over-year change in Freddie Mac's Conventional Mortgage Home Price Index--a measure of housing price inflation--and the average days on the market for properties currently on sale (to measure sales rates), using data from Zillow.com. We then averaged the scores for each measure to arrive at an overall ranking.
While there is no foolproof method for resisting recession, a common thread in thriving cities is an economy fed by multiple industries. Former Northeastern industrial hubs like Pittsburgh, and Rochester, N.Y., while they may not seem the likeliest models of economic health, have been able to supplement industrial sector decline with a boost from public-sector jobs that have pumped up the economy even as the private sector declined. They land in the fourth and seventh spot on our list, respectively.
But Rolf Pendall, associate professor of city and regional planning at Cornell University, warns that for upstate New York, this promising news may be temporary.
"We've had government spending plugging the gap," he says. "But it's hard to say what's going to happen in the next two years if government spending has to get withdrawn a lot, as it might."
Pittsburgh's GMP grew .8% between the second quarter of 2008 and 2009, consistent with the .8% national average. Home prices there remained relatively stable while those in other cities plummeted because the area's prospects still seemed dim during the housing bubble and speculators looked elsewhere.
"These metros have been so troubled for so long," says Pendall, "that people didn't develop irrational exuberance about the prospects in their housing markets."
Cities where home prices that don't fluctuate wildly are particularly well-positioned to ride out this recession, because they were spared the domino effect of foreclosures, lost jobs and lost productivity. In San Antonio and Austin, quick sales rates (homes in these cities spend 54 and 73 days on the market respectively compared to a 100-day national median) and home prices that fall above the national average--Austin's median home price in September, for example, is a healthy $240,000, 7% higher than the average for the top 100 metros, according to data from Zillow.com--indicate that they escaped the perilous zeal for building, and lending, that swept the rest of the country between 2001 and 2007.
There's a lesson to be learned from these cities, some of which aren't economically thriving, but all of which are well-equipped to emerge from the recession in a similar position to where they started. Rather than chasing rising home prices or apparently plentiful jobs in one-industry towns, families looking for long-term economic stability should seek spots where industry is diverse and housing price shifts are benign.
Full List: America's Fastest-Recovering Cities
Source: Forbes.com
Monday, November 30, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
36 Hours in Austin, Tex. - NYTimes.com
Great article from NYtimes
36 Hours in Austin, Tex. - NYTimes.com
36 Hours in Austin, Tex. - NYTimes.com
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
$8,000 homebuyers tax credit extended
By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer
November 6, 2009: 3:18 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama signed an extension and expansion of the first-time homebuyers tax credit on Friday.
The $8,000 credit was scheduled to lapse on Dec. 1 but will now be in effect through the end of June. Homebuyers must sign a contract before April 30 and close by June 30. The income limits were also raised: Single buyers can now earn up to $125,000 and still get the full credit while a married couple can earn $225,000.
The bill also made more homeowners eligible to claim the credit on their taxes. First-time buyers -- those who have not owned a home in the past three years -- still qualify for an $8,000 rebate. But now people who want to trade up can also qualify. Those who have owned and occupied a residence for at least five years out of the past eight can claim a $6,500 tax credit if they close on a purchase by the end of June.
"The new version of the tax credit has the potential to stimulate the housing market even more than the old version due to the fact that more people will qualify under the new rules," said Gibran Nicholas, chairman of the CMPS Institute, an organization that certifies mortgage bankers and brokers.
Who qualifies?
Nicholas provided four scenarios illustrating how the tax credit rules for existing homebuyers will apply:
• Harry owned a home in 2001 and 2002 but sold it to relocate for a job. He would qualify for the $8,000 first-time-buyer credit because he has not owned a home in the past three years.
• Sue purchased a home in 2004 and has lived there since. If she decides to buy a new home, she would qualify for the $6,500 tax credit because she has lived in the same residence for five consecutive years in the past eight.
• Jane purchased her home in 2002, lived there for five consecutive years before she rented it out in 2007. She would qualify because she was an owner/occupier for at least five consecutive years in the past eight.
• Mark purchased a home in 2006 and lived there for the past three years. He would not qualify because he is neither a first-time homebuyer nor someone who lived in the same primary residence for five consecutive years out of the past eight.
How it helps the economy
Legislators and industry experts expect that the credit will encourage buyers such as Jane and Sue to move up their purchase plans.
"This bill will shift demand from the second half of 2010 into the first half," said Pat Newport, a real estate analyst with IHS Global Research. "As a result, home sales and prices will get a boost in the first half of 2010, with payback in the second."
That's not a bad thing, according to Bill Kilmer, vice president of advocacy for the National Association of Home Builders. It's important to stabilize real estate markets quickly to help bring the economy out of its tailspin.
The original $8,000 tax credit appears to have helped accomplish that goal: Home prices have inched up the past few months, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index.
Would it have happened anyway?
But critics still see the program as being ineffectual because it rewards buyers who would have purchased a home anyway. Newport estimates that fewer than 400,000 of the 2 million who have claimed the original credit made their purchases solely because of the tax advantages.
Furthermore, buyers do not, in reality, receive the entire benefit. "The credit helped prices stabilize," said Newport. "So the credit has been split between seller and buyer. The sellers are getting higher prices and buyers paying more than they would have without it."
The housing industry, however, is pleased with the extension, although the credit has not been quite as effective as they hoped.
The industry thought the credit would provide a ripple effect, with sales to first timers triggering as many three additional "move-up" sales.
That did not happen, according to Lawrence Yun, NAR's chief economist.
"It did not have the chain reaction impact it was supposed to," he said. "Instead, many first-timers turned to vacant, foreclosed or other distressed properties the sellers of which were unlikely to be move-up buyers."
So, the tax credit helped prop up the low end of the market without having much impact on the rest of the spectrum. Expanding the benefit to existing homeowners should boost those segments. That should produce additional benefits, according to Yun.
"Preventing further price decline or even nudging prices up a bit stabilizes housing wealth, which makes homeowners more comfortable in their spending," said Yun. "They're more likely to go out to the stores or buy a new car. That provides a boost to the overall economy."
November 6, 2009: 3:18 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama signed an extension and expansion of the first-time homebuyers tax credit on Friday.
The $8,000 credit was scheduled to lapse on Dec. 1 but will now be in effect through the end of June. Homebuyers must sign a contract before April 30 and close by June 30. The income limits were also raised: Single buyers can now earn up to $125,000 and still get the full credit while a married couple can earn $225,000.
The bill also made more homeowners eligible to claim the credit on their taxes. First-time buyers -- those who have not owned a home in the past three years -- still qualify for an $8,000 rebate. But now people who want to trade up can also qualify. Those who have owned and occupied a residence for at least five years out of the past eight can claim a $6,500 tax credit if they close on a purchase by the end of June.
"The new version of the tax credit has the potential to stimulate the housing market even more than the old version due to the fact that more people will qualify under the new rules," said Gibran Nicholas, chairman of the CMPS Institute, an organization that certifies mortgage bankers and brokers.
Who qualifies?
Nicholas provided four scenarios illustrating how the tax credit rules for existing homebuyers will apply:
• Harry owned a home in 2001 and 2002 but sold it to relocate for a job. He would qualify for the $8,000 first-time-buyer credit because he has not owned a home in the past three years.
• Sue purchased a home in 2004 and has lived there since. If she decides to buy a new home, she would qualify for the $6,500 tax credit because she has lived in the same residence for five consecutive years in the past eight.
• Jane purchased her home in 2002, lived there for five consecutive years before she rented it out in 2007. She would qualify because she was an owner/occupier for at least five consecutive years in the past eight.
• Mark purchased a home in 2006 and lived there for the past three years. He would not qualify because he is neither a first-time homebuyer nor someone who lived in the same primary residence for five consecutive years out of the past eight.
How it helps the economy
Legislators and industry experts expect that the credit will encourage buyers such as Jane and Sue to move up their purchase plans.
"This bill will shift demand from the second half of 2010 into the first half," said Pat Newport, a real estate analyst with IHS Global Research. "As a result, home sales and prices will get a boost in the first half of 2010, with payback in the second."
That's not a bad thing, according to Bill Kilmer, vice president of advocacy for the National Association of Home Builders. It's important to stabilize real estate markets quickly to help bring the economy out of its tailspin.
The original $8,000 tax credit appears to have helped accomplish that goal: Home prices have inched up the past few months, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index.
Would it have happened anyway?
But critics still see the program as being ineffectual because it rewards buyers who would have purchased a home anyway. Newport estimates that fewer than 400,000 of the 2 million who have claimed the original credit made their purchases solely because of the tax advantages.
Furthermore, buyers do not, in reality, receive the entire benefit. "The credit helped prices stabilize," said Newport. "So the credit has been split between seller and buyer. The sellers are getting higher prices and buyers paying more than they would have without it."
The housing industry, however, is pleased with the extension, although the credit has not been quite as effective as they hoped.
The industry thought the credit would provide a ripple effect, with sales to first timers triggering as many three additional "move-up" sales.
That did not happen, according to Lawrence Yun, NAR's chief economist.
"It did not have the chain reaction impact it was supposed to," he said. "Instead, many first-timers turned to vacant, foreclosed or other distressed properties the sellers of which were unlikely to be move-up buyers."
So, the tax credit helped prop up the low end of the market without having much impact on the rest of the spectrum. Expanding the benefit to existing homeowners should boost those segments. That should produce additional benefits, according to Yun.
"Preventing further price decline or even nudging prices up a bit stabilizes housing wealth, which makes homeowners more comfortable in their spending," said Yun. "They're more likely to go out to the stores or buy a new car. That provides a boost to the overall economy."
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
10 Affordable Home Redos: Buyer's Guide: REALTOR Magazine
Are you thinking about selling your house? Before you head to the bank for a home equity loan read this:
10 Affordable Home Redos: Buyer's Guide: REALTOR Magazine
10 Affordable Home Redos: Buyer's Guide: REALTOR Magazine
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Heading to College Towns
According to a recent report by Forbes, Austin is among the top college towns attracting new residents. The report analyzed the number of residents in 2008 that moved to high populated areas and determined that college towns are attracting new residents because of the stability of local universities as employers and the young population that inhabits these areas. Austin was on the list, along with Raleigh, N.C. and Provo, U.T. Big cities, with high costs of living, are not as attractive to new residents
Source:Forbes
Source:Forbes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
