An observation I've also had is that not many people factor in time, maintenance and repair costs when considering Portland homes. I've looked at $350k houses here that are complete junk without another $50-200k in (I'm not just talking kitchen remodels, just as often I see serious roof and water damage problems), and therefore really are priced at $450-600k. Real estate brokers have been.. less than stellar about disclosing some of these issues to buyers. One place I looked at was listed at $375k, went for over $450k and had in the house, no shit, uninsulated knob-and-tube wiring going into a fusebox model from the 60s that was recalled 25 years ago for electrical issues. Better to get your Will settled before moving in there.

When you factor in these hidden costs, things start to look very overpriced around here. I expect that in the next five years there will be a lot of disgruntled owners putting these houses back up at purchase price (or maybe even less) after they get sick of dealing with the problems and start to realize the price tag to fix them.

In the interim, the bad news is that Portland is basically out of housing stock at this point too. Expect more rentals and condos in the future.

It's literally crazy. We bought our house last May and have seen a 45% increase in value (according to online estimators which are usually off by a bit). So far we've lucked out. Our house was built in 1920 and had major work done in 1950, 2005, and again in 2009. Over the past 9 months the only major issue we've had is updating our furnace and heating from oil to natural gas (which ends up saving us money in the long run). I do wonder about many of these flipped houses though. Just one street over I've seen 3 1920's houses flipped in a few weeks and sold for crazy high amounts. These flips have to be mostly cosmetic. They make the interiors look amazing, but the house itself is still shot.

Counterpoint: Conditions were just like this in DC 7 years ago, and tons of people bought these dilapidated 350k row houses, put 150k into fixing them, then sold them a few years later for 750k+ because demand in the city kept growing.

It's not a strategy I'd bet on myself, but it has worked in many cities in the (recent) past.

What is wrong with knob and tube wiring? Fuseboxes suck, but knob and tube isn't too bad. You are basically guaranteed to never have an electrical fire.

"SF on the other hand is just seeing their ceiling come into play. Only so many people can justify raising a family and purchasing a home in The Bay. Why not change jobs to Seattle or Portland and make around the same money, but spend half on a house? I think that's what we're seeing."

It's more than just tech workers. SF real estate prices have been influenced significantly by foreign speculation (especially from China). As the Chinese market slows down, so too does speculative offshore real estate investment. And these were buyers with virtually unlimited purses, ready to drop all-cash well north of asking prices.

(Full disclosure: I own a modest condo in SF, and when Chinese speculation was at its frothiest, I would get hand-delivered letters from real estate agents on more or less a quarterly basis. They would state that XYZ buyer in China is willing to purchase my property, sight unseen, and they would ask me to get in touch if interested.)

Why isn't this drying up in Canada then?

I know basically nothing about the Canadian market, or the various factors (regulatory, tax-related, currency-driven, or otherwise) that might make it more or less attractive to foreign investment than the market in SF. I also know very little about which types of foreign buyers consider Canadian real estate attractive.

Since I'm admittedly pretty ignorant of that market, I honestly can't say.

The best I can tell you is that, while foreign demand in the aggregate might be global, there are many local factors that determine whether a particular market is or is not the recipient of significant investment at any given time. We can't assume a global/universal phenomenon applies itself evenly across all localities. Indeed, many of these locales might be substitutes for one another at different points in time and under various macroeconomic circumstances.

My hypothesis is that the China/hk dollar peg is to blame.

Edit: to clarify, the Chinese yuan and hkd are pegged to the USD. The recent strength of the USD has caused problems for China ...some people thing the peg will fail. If you are one of these people and you have lots of cash in China, you want to move the money out of the country and into a different asset class. The recent weakness of the Canadian dollar has made parking money in Canada very reasonable via buying of property. As a poor Canadian who owns no property, I'm pretty much outpriced of the real estate market in the city where I was raised .. with the exception of a condo ...those are being unconstru ted at an unbelievable pace. People I meet seem to own 2-3 condos a piece. Everyone thinks they'll just rent them out. I think we are almost guaranteed to have a condo collapse in the near future.

> People I meet seem to own 2-3 condos a piece. Everyone thinks they'll just rent them out. I think we are almost guaranteed to have a condo collapse in the near future.

If you're not hung up on owning, this is a great spot to be in. I can already rent a luxury condo here in Toronto for less than (mortgage interest + property tax + maintenance) would cost me if I had purchased it. Rich landlords are effectively subsidizing our rents (which are very, very cheap compared to SF or NYC).

My worry is that a day will come when rents start to increase. My great fear is that this will happen precisely when interest rates are high. What will we renters do then? We will truly have no choice then. The housing market in the UK is going through something like this now.

They're not going to raise interest rates in the teeth of a housing crash. You're going through exactly what I went through where I live, and I was able to pick up a house for half what it would have cost if I bought when I moved here.

The previous owner bought at the peak and still owed double what I paid. Don't be that guy.

Interest rates in the UK are 0.5% and have been for 7 years now. These low interest rates, while necessary for the real economy with inflation near zero, support extremely high house prices. Mortgage interest payments substitute for rent so low rates imply high prices.

As a renter without much in the way of assets a high inflation high interest rate regime is really beneficial. Higher rates would mean lower prices (thus lower required deposits) and high inflation would mean quickly building equity.

It's easier to become a naturalized Canadian for Chinese nationals, isn't it? Maybe the Chinese buying homes in the Canadian market are actually planning to move there and raise kids (as opposed to pure speculation in the US market).

Interesting thought - this NYT article suggests that many wealthy Chinese children are moving to and living in Vancouver.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/world/americas/canada-vanc...

The University of BC has an alternate name: University of Beautiful Cars.

http://universityofbeautifulcars.tumblr.com

You probably don't need me to tell you who owns them...

University of Toronto Mississauga is the same, with respect to overly nice student vehicles.

Some of the difference in nominal price appreciation is currency driven -- the US dollar has been strong and the loonie has been (relatively) weak.

Loonie has gone up over 10% in the last couple months, Vancouver has continued to go crazier.

Because you can buy citizenship here (Canada).

Isn't Vancouver and Toronto also easing towards correction?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-15/canadian-m...

Yup. And, as vc dollars start drying up and companies get pressure to become profitable again, employers will figure out where to go: out of San Francisco.

So, my impression is that the companies that pay enough that you can actually afford to think about buying in SF are the large and profitable companies... from what I've seen, vc-dependent startups pay dramatically less.

Of course, most of those profitable company jobs are in the south bay, not in SF proper, but hell, if I could buy one of those mini-condos in sf for a quarter mill, I'd jump on it.

I'm trying to say that I'm not sure that the vc-dependent will have as much effect on the market overall as you say, unless the slowdown progresses to the point where it starts pulling down the big guys.

(which isn't impossible. someone put forth the theory that a lot of the highest-margin advertising dollars come from said vc-dependent firms, and if those went away, everyone would pay a lot less for advertising, which would dramatically effect the big, profitable employers around here. I would rate that theory as plausible, but not certain.)

They form the same labor market though. Fewer startups puts less pressure on the price for hiring engineers.

You don't have to many any assumptions about advertising dollars (the vast majority of which come from outside SV) to see how a startup slowdown will also have an impact on all engineering salaries.

> They form the same labor market though. Fewer startups puts less pressure on the price for hiring engineers.

Yeah. I guess two questions.

1. how much of the market for Engineers is vc-dependent startups? My impression is that they have an outsized PR footprint for the number of jobs there.

2. If I'm right that they get paid less, (which is my experience and belief, but I have no hard data to back up my assertion) are the engineers working at startups mostly just entry-level folks? (this is kind of my impression, or at least they seem to be way less experienced than folks you see at established companies, though again, I don't have hard data.)

I mean, inarguably, it will have some effect, but how much depends a lot on those two factors.

> 1. how much of the market for Engineers is vc-dependent startups?

Based on my inbox, half the hiring is from startups.

> are the engineers working at startups mostly just entry-level folks?

No. Startup compensation is certainly less cash, but it's also more variable. At better startups, you'll find plenty of senior engineers including ex-BigCo people.

Also keep in mind that for top engineers there's also the competitive option of founding a startup. If funding cools down substantially, then that prospect becomes much less attractive and companies have to worry less about retaining talent.

>Also keep in mind that for top engineers there's also the competitive option of founding a startup. If funding cools down substantially, then that prospect becomes much less attractive and companies have to worry less about retaining talent.

In my experience, If you are not an 'executive track' type; I mean, if you don't have both the contacts and the business skills, you are generally going to make a lot more money as an Engineer at a big company. I mean, like most technical people, I used to think I was a lot smarter than my boss. I mean, I maybe still think that, depending on what you mean by 'smart' - but I tried, and I can tell you that business is a complex thing that requires a completely different skillset, and after trying it? smart or not, it's something I'm terrible at, or at least if you compare the "what a big company would pay for the labor in" even to my raw revenue, I apparently destroy a lot of value.

And yes, yes, you partner with a business person! But... you know how there are 10x programmers? the difference in productivity of business people is way, way bigger than 10x. And just like hiring Engineers, it takes one to know one... I'd argue that it's even harder to hire a businessperson profitably, because negotiation and perception management are core skills for the businessperson.

I never said it was necessarily wise to start a startup. Having worked on my fair share, I quite agree that it's very difficult and you need very strong business skills.

However, people (including very good engineers) are not rational and in boom times are attracted to the idea of founding a startup even if it's economically undesirable.

A bit off topic, but how was your experience with Redfin? I'm thinking of using them.

I'm not the previous author, but I bought my home (in SF) with Redfin about 2.5 years ago, and our experience was very good. It felt to us like all the good parts of having a real estate agent and none of the bad parts.

We wanted to just browse a webpage for homes ourselves, though (and then have someone help us evaluate and make an offer on them). If you want someone to go out and find houses and offer them to you, it's not the service for you.

I bought with Redfin and my agent was fantastic. She worked much harder to close deals than did the full-commission agents working the sales (we made offers on two properties before closing on the third.)

However Redfin is not for you if you want an agent driving you around, suggesting "maybe you should look at this house," giving you inside tips like "oh, my friend at another brokerage has a great house that will be listed tomorrow," etc. Redfin is good if you don't mind driving the shopping process and you just want someone to close out the deal.

I can say that I saw a lot of really crappy agents selling houses. Most agents I saw absolutely do not deserve whatever commission they get. I do not think Redfin is as good as the best traditional agent. However I do think an average Redfin agent is probably much better than an average traditional agent.

I used them and it was excellent - exactly what I'd want as a tech-comfortable person. It's not the best for people who want a person to meet with in person or talk to frequently on the phone. Also note that Real Estate agents on the other end of the transition can be a bit annoyed by you using RedFin.

What is it? Some kind of real estate brokerage service? It's not merely a research site like zillow or trulia?

EDIT: ok, it looks like it's a real estate agency that's salaried instead of commission -- err, scratch that, they take a less-than-industry average commission. Sounds a little disruptive.

Redfin as a company takes a lower commission -- more precisely, they refund about a third of their commission to you. Agents themselves are paid a bonus based solely on client satisfaction surveys. At least that's how they said it worked when I used them in 2013.

Yes please buy your house from Redfin so they can IPO and I can sell my worthless options.

Besides working there, I also bought my house from Redfin. They tend to do less handholding because each Redfin agent handles more clients at a time than a traditional agent. However, if you are a first time buyer then they will provide more attention. But if you use the Internet for searches then you probably don't need and might even be annoyed by traditional agents.

Took a quick look and their price estimations are dubious at best. In the complex I live in, comparing 2 condos of exact layout and sq footage, same view, sold 4 weeks apart, one on the 2nd floor the other on the 4th: the 2nd floor unit's price 'grew' $20k while the 4th floor unit 'grew' $500. Great job on 2 orders of magnitude error.

The price estimation is not their primary purpose (unlike Zillow, who use their "Zestimate" as a main selling point).

As a buyer I would assume it's pretty similar to other agents. The only big difference is that they contribute some stipend to your closing costs. So it's a bit cheaper for both parties (as they take a smaller commission as well) to go with Redfin.

Minor clarification: when we bought through Redfin in 2010, the rebate came as a check a week or two after closing, not a contribution to closing costs. Adding a transaction to the already complex closing process would not have been worth the benefit of getting the money a bit sooner.

I don't know anything about this company. I have an idea what market they are trying to crack. I can't believe it's taken this long.

I've always felt paying a Realtor 3% on the biggest item most of us will buy in our lives is crazy. I just don't know what they do for that commission. I don't know what makes one successful--just because he/she sold more than the others? Pay them more because they know how to network?

I missed getting my RE Brokers license a few years ago. I procrastinated. The Realestate lobby got to Jerry Brown, and got their bill though. A rediculious bill that just made it more difficult to get a license, essentially cutting down on supply. Enough said. To get a licence. It's about eight courses, and couple of years of doubious experience, and a simple test.

Now what does a good Realtor do earn that huge financial jackpot when they sell/buy you a house? I haven't a clue. Maybe a good omissions/errors insurance policy? I don't have a clue.

I've been told to pay full commission, and you will see what they bring. Then again, this sounds like something the King of Realestate came up with?

So, to all you young, hungry developers. I really believe the Realestate Agent is long past it's due date. I would love to see a safe way to exclude them, and their commissions form the home/commercial buying experience. A fool proof way?

I will now look into Redfin. If it's half what I believe it to be; there's much room for competition?

Good agents can be worth it.

Redfin provides a refund of a portion of their commission as a seller's agent. I considered them when selling a house. However, after having meetings with an agent of theirs and another independent agent that charged the normal 3% seller's fee, I decided to go with the independent.

The Redfin agent had suggested a price of $649k, while the independent suggested $745k. The house wound up selling just under ask of $738k. The Redfin agent did very little work to understand the value of the property and what it could be sold for, and only used an automated tool, while the independent agent did more work to select better comparable properties. And the more expensive broker wound up paying for some items such as light landscaping and staging, so the price difference was less than the percentage differential.

Obviously in this case the discounts Redfin provided did not nearly make up for the difference in selling price. A good broker can get a price that is vastly larger than the difference in their price.

However, Redfin would probably be great for selling properties that are part of subdivisions, or in a condo building, where the automated tool would work very well and not as much "human intelligence" is required to get the job done.

A good real estate agent you can trust is worth the 3%. They can foresee potential roadblocks, help you navigate the somewhat complicated process and really find you your dream home. The real trick is finding one of those agents.

I used to work in the RE business and there are good agents that earn that value and there are bad agents that don't.

You are paying for market expertise, negotiating experience and arms length distance.

On a slightly different note, this podcast and the book "The Middleman Economy" go into detail about why middle men (like real estate agents) are useful: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/03/marina_krakovsk.htm...

Edit: typos

you pay them a commission because real estate deals can get ugly, fast, especially in competitive markets like in the coastal US.

a good agent has seen it all before, knows what to do when the seller or buyer starts making threats or is trying to angle the deal somehow. he knows what lawyers to call, what finance people to call, and yes, networks and has relationships with agents to get you properties that haven't hit the market yet.

out of my peer group who has ever bought property, i'd say a good third of them had some kind of issue during the deal that required an expert to mitigate.

of course a shitty real estate agent isn't worth their pay - but that goes for any job. but otherwise, it's the same old shit -- things are going great, what am i paying you for? things are going shitty, what am i paying you for?

I have a great real estate agent. He knew the math equations that HUD used to price their homes at auction, and what percentage of that price they'd take. Our first house (bought in 2008), he suggested that if we waited to make a bid on a house until a certain day, the price would drop, and they'd take 80% of the asking price. He was correct and we made a lot of money by selling when the market came back.

On the next house, he looked at the roof and knew that the house probably had a recalled shingle on it, and we couldn't even get insurance on the house with that shingle. The homeowner was stuck between replacing the shingles or taking a chance that the next buyer would have less attentive real estate/home inspectors.

Twice I have greatly benefited financially by his expertise. I'm not paying him a lot for his services necessarily (although he's great at it), I'm paying him for his expertise.

Some people really want to talk back and forth with a human and have an ear that will listen to their questions. Instead of shopping for their own house, researching areas, etc. So it's convenience cost for the hand-holding.

There is always going to be high demand for houses that are close to the large job centers. How strong that demand is will be partly influenced by the economy.

The housing boom we saw in the mid 2000s was a bit of a fluke due to asset inflation that arose from the Feds ZIRP. One could argue that the current asset appreciation we are seeing from 2011 to present is another unintended consequence of the ZIRP.

I'd take it a step further and argue that asset appreciation was an intended outcome of ZIRP.

Think about it, if peoples houses and 401Ks went belly up, there would be chaos and major fallout.

Relevant to SF housing and Portland:

http://www.oregonlive.com/front-porch/index.ssf/2016/04/yes_... - an interview with SFYimby.