Connect with us

California

Are cheaper mortgages bad news for California’s housing market?

Published

on

Are cheaper mortgages bad news for California’s housing market?


Falling mortgage rates should come with a warning label stating: “Be careful what you wish for!”

This summer’s cheaper home loans ignited real estate buzz suggesting California’s two-year homebuying slump may be nearing its end.

The Federal Reserve’s lengthy battle against inflation – fueled by higher interest rates – helped make California homebuying nearly impossible for most house hunters. But mid-2024’s moderating cost of living, plus overall economic lethargy, has already trimmed mortgage rates off 20-year highs. Come September, the Fed is expected to begin cutting its benchmark rates.

Advertisement

Yes, lower rates mildly prune California’s huge affordability challenges. Some industry insiders even speculate these savings could create a rush to buy, forcing California prices even higher.

But the same cheaper mortgages that lead to a “buy now” narrative are often signals of economic trouble. Remember, interest rates typically fall when the business climate cools.

By the numbers

To contemplate the mix of rates and pricing, I filled my trusty spreadsheet with these stats dating to 1977: the average 30-year mortgage from Freddie Mac, California home price data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and what you may think is an odd number: the state’s unemployment rate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Consider what we learn when slicing history into 12-month periods, simply based on whether mortgage rates got pricier or cheaper over the past 47 years.

When mortgage rates grew over a year’s time, California home prices averaged 10%-a-year gains.

Advertisement

Then look at what happens when mortgage rates fell. California prices gained only 4.4% on average. Yes, less than half.

Now, let’s not blindly cheer rising rates. Think about a theoretical buyer’s house payment using math that combines these pricing patterns and rate swings.

When rates rise over a year, estimated California house payments jumped 21% on average. Pricier homes plus pricier loans is a painful bite to the wallet. But buyers seem willing to pay up.

Conversely, payments in times of falling rates dropped by 2.6% a year on average. So it’s the cheaper money that creates whatever meager affordability exists in California.

Now, these results may seem illogical as pictured through a traditional real estate lens. But take a broader view of the economy and ponder the cyclical health of California’s job market.

Advertisement

When mortgage rates rose during the past half century, the statewide unemployment was falling by 0.7 percentage points per year on average. Basically, interest rates rise when times are good and bosses are hiring.

Unfortunately, when the economy gets too hot – such we saw in 2021 to 2023 – the bond market and/or the Fed may play Grinch, pushing up interest rates, and spoiling the economic party.

Contrast that pattern to how the economy performs when loan rates decline during the past half century: California joblessness was increasing by 0.3 percentage points. So fewer jobs, less demand for all sorts of goods and services – and a Fed more willing to help.

Bottom line

Don’t overthink housing’s sometimes myopic data. It’s really about real estate’s three pillars: “Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.”

In the past 47 years, when jobs are scarce and unemployment rises in a year, California home prices average 2% gains. When unemployment drops, prices rise 9%.

Advertisement

Please note that California joblessness has been above 5% for 10 months, after reaching an all-time low of 3.8% in August 2022.

You see, successful house hunting requires not only a paycheck – but confidence that you’ll remain employed. And cheaper mortgages frequently come with a weaker business climate and depressed consumer confidence.

That can make California house hunters think twice about paying top dollar for housing. It’s a key reason why you see weaker pricing when rates are down.

Of course, every cycle is different. Maybe the odd post-pandemic real estate market will act unlike the statistical norms shown by this math.

Ponder history’s extremes. Prices jumped 29% with lower rates in the year ended in September 2004. But cheaper mortgages did not prevent a 23% drop in the 12 months ended September 2008.

Advertisement

So summer 2024 might be a “buy now” moment with tumbling rates helping to push California home prices skyward. But the true catalyst would be an economy that nails an Olympic-quality soft landing with few job losses.

My spreadsheet also tells me that since 1977 when mortgages got cheaper in a year, California home prices rose 67% of the time. Not bad odds.

But when rates were rising, price gains came 85% of the time.

Postscript

The economic fallout of cheaper mortgages has modestly varied in the past half century, depending on the size of the rate drops. Ponder these California examples of one-year dips …

Rates down half-percentage-point or more: Home prices rose 3.6% in 12 months on average in these situations. Again, a weak economy, as California’s unemployment rate averaged a 0.9-point increase in a year.

Advertisement

Off three-quarters-point or more: Prices up 2.5%. Unemployment up 1.1 points.

Off 1 point or more: Prices rise 4.2%. Unemployment up 0.6 points.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

Originally Published:



Source link

Advertisement

California

JD Vance accuses California of letting Medicaid fraudsters cash in at taxpayer expense | Fox Business Video

Published

on

JD Vance accuses California of letting Medicaid fraudsters cash in at taxpayer expense | Fox Business Video




Source link

Continue Reading

California

Live Updates: Candidates face off in the CBS News California and San Francisco Examiner Governor’s Debate

Published

on

Live Updates: Candidates face off in the CBS News California and San Francisco Examiner Governor’s Debate


 

Learn more about candidates’ stances on the issues in the California Governor’s Race interactive guide

CBS News California launched an interactive tool to help voters navigate this year’s gubernatorial race. The California Governor’s Race Candidate Guide features 20 hours of interviews with top-polling candidates to provide voters the opportunity to compare each candidate’s responses side-by-side on the issues that matter most to them.

Those running to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom as California’s next chief executive offered their thoughts on more than a dozen issues, including homelessness, housing affordability, gas prices and environmental policy, immigration, healthcare, crime and public safety funding, and the state’s ongoing insurance crisis.

Advertisement
 

Here’s what to know about the CBS News California/San Francisco Examiner Governor’s Debate format

The format of the CBS News California and San Francisco Examiner Governor’s Debate on Thursday will allow candidates to question each other directly. 

Advertisement

Candidates will also participate in segments in which they address real-world issues California voters may face in their daily lives. The Californians who will be featured include a working single mother pursuing education; a couple struggling to achieve homeownership; and a scientist warning of the long-term consequences of inaction on climate change.

This structure for Thursday’s debate differs from the previous face-off hosted by CBS News California stations, which comprised three segments focused on affordability, accountability and social issues that lasted roughly half an hour each.

 
Advertisement

Becerra, Hilton, Steyer lead field in latest polling on California governor’s race

An Emerson College poll released the day before the CBS News California and San Francisco Examiner Governor’s Debate showed Xavier Becerra leading the field with likely voters surveyed at 19%, followed by Steve Hilton and Tom Steyer both receiving 17%. Chad Bianco came in at 11%, followed by Katie Porter at 10%, Matt Mahan at 8%, Antonio Villaraigosa at 4% and Tony Thurmond at 1%. Twelve percent said they remained undecided.

In a CBS News/YouGov poll last month conducted before the April 28 CBS California Governor’s Debate, Hilton received support from 16% of likely voters polled, with Steyer and Becerra following at 15% and 13% respectively. Bianco came in at 10%, Porter received 9%, Matt Mahan and Antonio Villaraigosa both received 4%, and Tony Thurmond received 1%. The survey also found that a significant 26% of those polled were undecided.

California’s June 2 primary is an open primary where the top two vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to face off in the November general election. 

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Opinion | California will make less money from greenhouse gas emission auctions

Published

on

Opinion | California will make less money from greenhouse gas emission auctions


By Dan Walters, CalMatters

The Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington, on Sept. 30, 2025. Photo by Stella Kalinina for CalMatters

This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Two decades ago, when California got serious about reducing or even eliminating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, its political leaders weighed two potential tactics about industrial emissions.

Advertisement

The state could impose direct facility-by-facility limits, generally favored by climate change advocates. Or it could set overall emission reduction goals that would gradually decrease and auction off emission allowances, assuming their costs would encourage reductions.

The latter, known as cap-and-trade, was favored by corporate interests as being less onerous and was adopted, finally taking effect in 2012.

Since then, the California Air Resources Board has conducted quarterly auctions of emission allowances, collecting a total of $35 billion dollars so far, which, in theory, is being spent on projects that would reduce emissions.

The revenues have varied from year to year, but they have generally increased as the emission caps have declined. Since reaching a peak of $8.1 billion in the 2023-24 fiscal year, however, auction proceeds have been declining.

Roughly half of the money has been given to utilities to minimize cap-and-trade’s impact on consumer costs. However, the program has been widely criticized as a de facto tax on gasoline and other fuels, which were already among the most expensive of any state.

Advertisement

The remaining revenues have been deposited into a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that governors and legislators have tapped for various purposes, not all of them connected to emission reductions. In a sense, it’s been a slush fund.

Last year Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature overhauled the program in two bills, Senate Bill 840 and Assembly Bill 1207. The program was extended, it was renamed as cap-and-invest and new priorities for spending auction proceeds were set.

Notably, the state’s cash-strapped and long-stalled bullet train project would get a flat $1 billion a year, rather than the 25% share it had been getting. Project managers hope that lenders will advance enough money to complete its first leg in the San Joacim Valley; the plan is to repay the loans from the $1 billion annual cap-and-invest allocation.

Early this year, the Air Resources Board released new regulations to implement the legislative changes but faced criticism that they would increase consumer costs. That led to a revision in April that softens the rules’ impact — most obviously on refiners who have been threatening to leave California — but environmental groups are very critical.

The April version would also sharply reduce net revenues from emission auctions, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, providing barely enough for the $1 billion allocation to the bullet train and another $1 billion for the governor and Legislature to spend. Other programs that have been receiving cap-and-invest support, such as wildfire protection and housing, would probably get nothing.

Advertisement

The program has been tapped in recent years to backfill programs that a deficit-ridden state budget could not cover, so the projected revenue drop would exacerbate efforts by Newsom and legislators to close the state budget’s yawning gap.

“The (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund) is a relatively small portion of the overall state budget, but it has been a noteworthy source of funding for environmental and other programs in recent years,” the state Assembly’s budget advisor, Jason Sisney, says in an email. “Collapse of its revenues would change the state budget process noticeably. The state’s cost-pressured general fund seemingly would be unable to make up much, if any, of a significant (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund) revenue decline at this time.”

When Newsom presents his revised budget this week, he may reveal how he intends to cover the cap-and-invest program’s shortfall, particularly whether he will maintain the $1 billion bullet train commitment that project leaders say is vital to continuing construction of its Merced-to-Bakersfield segment.

It could boil down to bullet train vs. wildfire protection.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending