> Cash buyers are generally about 25% of the market

Cash buyers often finance the property they buy. All a "cash buyer" means is that the deal is not contingent on financing, either contractually or as a practical matter. That is, they can guarantee the sale goes through with cash.

I wonder then what the real percentage of "cash buyers" is.

I'm not sure. Certainly many people refinanced their houses to pull money out over the past few years or got margin loans based on their stocks. Using that money to buy a (different) house still gets counted as a cash buyer.

FWIW, those numbers are off because of escrow and taxes. 1.22MM house means AT LEAST 30k in property taxes a year, which mean's they'll end up at >~7.5k a payment, which means they'll need to buy a smaller house.

Varies widely by location. My house is around 2x that and my annual property taxes are under $15K/yr (Cambridge, MA).

Property taxes in WA wouldn’t be much more than $13k if the home had an assessed value of $1.22M.

It also isn’t uncommon to see a big difference between the sale price and assessed value. One datapoint would be a $4M purchase that is only taxed at $2.2M the first year after the deal closed. At least in King County, the valuations do seem to “catch up more quickly” after a sale, so at +1y it might be $2.8M, at +2y it might be $3.3M, but to be paying >$30k here in taxes you’d need a >$3M assessed value home.

Seattle area property tax is usually around 0.75% of market value. Although, I would guess some are near or above 1% due to very recent declines in market value.

That seems low. My taxes were $9.40 per $1000 of assessed value in 2022. From searching around, I see an average 0.88% for King County (and apparently Pierce and Snohomish are higher).[1]

[1]: https://www.tax-rates.org/washington/king_county_property_ta...

Yes, last time I checked, the numbers were still based on outlier price increases in 2020 and 2021. It may already be at 1% or even higher for many people.

Property taxes vary all over the country. They also can vary wildly if you have an older house vs new construction.

In Seattle, where the housing market is considered expensive, a 1.2m house only pays $7k in property taxes

> In Seattle, where the housing market is considered expensive, a 1.2m house only pays $7k in property taxes

Only if it has (a) an exemption or (b) an assessment well below market value. A typical house with a $1.2 million assessment will have paid over $10k in property taxes in 2022.

All properties assess below market value, even new construction. A 1.2m house will generally assess for around 800k.

That would be option (b) in my comment. Washington State law requires assessed values to be 100% of "true and fair value"[1] despite the fact that they tend to lag market value.

[1]: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=458-07-030

Not where I live in NJ. 1.2M house is going to be < 20K taxes.

Yeah this is very market dependent, especially with regard to whether there are state/local income taxes or the government depends mostly on property taxes. Here in NYC I’d expect to pay $10k or less in annual taxes for a property in that price range, however there are city and state income taxes plus apartment building building common charges.

It’s hard to compare this stuff apples to apples, but the one constant regardless of locality is that higher rates significantly reduce buying power for people relying on mortgages.

Where do you live in NJ? The average effective property tax rate is 2.470% of the home value. Property taxes would be ~$38k in Gloucester county(across the river from Philly).

I'm in Ridgewood - Bergen county.

Is that the town-assessed value? This [1] shows 2.708% so on $1.2M that would be $32k in taxes, I think something is special about your situation?

https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/lpt/gtr/2021ta...

NJ and NY both have some pretty wide ranges of property taxes from town to town, county to county, not just because the percentages might be a bit different, but because their valuation systems are wildly confusing and inconsistent.

If the source of that cash is the stock market - or money gained from selling a previous house...

Are cash buyers really 25% of the market in the US?

I think you're on to something here.

My local anecdote - a few of my realtor friends said roughly 70% of all transactions in the last two years in Santa Barbara area have been cash deals. They also said currently those deals are all dried up. From what little research I've put into it, from the county assessors office it looks like 2.5k homes were sold last year in the area. Now think about this, we had an overwhelming number of people from LA and SF flee to Santa Barbara during the pandemic. How many of those people had temporarily won the stock option start-up lottery, ie. any tech bubble employee - zoom, pelaton, doordash, etc, or had a house that had spiked in value willing and was willing to swap homes. It doesn't take much when housing supply is at historic low and temporary bubble demand skyrocketed to throw the market all out of whack. Personally, I know at least 10 people that traded their zoom stock for all cash housing deals here in SB at the right time. Now that stock is worth 1/8 of what is was. I imagine that this scenario played out a few hundred times just in our little town. Extrapolate that nationwide, you can see what might have contributed to massive asset valuations that quite literally, don't make sense. In the long run, it shouldn't matter, however it will be fun to watch it all play out.

Some “cash buyers” were actually taking loans against their stock assets.

And then a lot of them will take out a mortgage to payoff the loan against the stock after the house is purchased.

Cash buying is one of those terms people don't understand. You're almost never getting a suitcase of 100's.

> You're almost never getting a suitcase of 100's.

And if you are, you may want to follow your escrow agent as they run out the door.

> Are cash buyers really 25% of the market in the US?

Not in the sense that they didn't finance part of the purchase, as I understand it. It just means the cash is already there from the point of view of the buyer.

Yeah, but some people switch to adjustable rate or balloon mortgages when they can't afford fixed. This is what I did when I bought my first house in 1988, with fixed rates over 10%.

Better hope that interest rate doesn’t increase instead!

Yes, indeed! If the rate increases are capped then you have a bit of control over it, as you do by choosing the adjustment period (1 vs 3 vs 5yr ARM).

Is that actually correct? What about the down payment difference, as applied to the cheaper house?

The other side of supply/demand is the supply.

People sitting on 2% mortgages are not going to move. There's a lot of housing inventory that's locked away now [1].

We're going to enter a lower supply, lower demand market. The prices might not move much.

[1] Maybe downsizing Boomers will balance this. I'm not aware of any measures of this trend, though. And a lot of Boomers just sold/downsized to take advantage of the high prices.

Nearly my entire neighborhood consists of old Gen Xers and Boomers living in 2500-3500 sq ft houses, sometimes alone. It's insane. These people have decades to live in many cases. They are taking up these huge houses in smaller cities like mine so where are families going to go?

As one of those genx with a house larger than I need... yes.

The flip side of that is when I bought this hose from (looking it up) silent generation owner who was moving to a nursing home, there wasn't any other housing inventory in the price range and area and cost. Buying an old house and fixing it up over the years was much cheaper than buying a new house another half an hour out of town that costs 2x-3x more.

The buying a small house new house is still 2x-3x more than this old house would sell for.

Other than that this is a big house, there is no reason to sell it at this time. Additionally, the new development that is being built is targeting the most money that can be packed into a single lot... and... well, I don't want or need that.

If people want me to move out, build a nice 1-2 br 1.5 bath with a room for a home office on the quiet end of a street. I don't need a fancy kitchen. I don't need a place for fancy plates to show off in the dining room. I don't need a man cave with a bar or a three car garage... just something nice and sensible.

And yes, it is certainly a problem. Housing supply has been woefully under built for a decade or more, and that which is there is not targeting what remains of the middle aged middle class that sees a 30 year mortgage when they're 40 as absurd. The less expensive supply is often getting bought up by people speculating, as a rental property (either by a landlord or by a company).

Which brings us to "I've got a house, its paid off, going anywhere else reduces my net worth and gives me some debt that I'm unlikely going to be pay off before I retire - there is no reason to move at all."

Not everyone is "fit" for living in dense cities with shared walls, noisy streets and crowded environs. There's a psychological component to being embedded with many people 24/7 that is under-appreciated here, when people fantasize about the ideal society of walkable cities, proportionally-sized dwellings, and density. The latter is for the single, the young and the adventurous. The old cranks like myself grow out of it and long for a few thousand feet without noisy student neighbors playing music in the middle of the night or having parties.

Not to mention waiting in lines everywhere to go, and being forced to rub shoulders with lunatics when you need to commute for work or shopping.

At this stage of the game I'm ready for the 2500 sf house.

> Nearly my entire neighborhood consists of old Gen Xers and Boomers living in 2500-3500 sq ft houses, sometimes alone.

Where is this? I'd love a place where single people can afford a 3500sqft house?

Here in silicon valley it takes two tech salaries to afford a 1300sqft box.

> Where is this? I'd love a place where single people can afford a 3500sqft house?

Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, ...

I see a future for a new financial product where the existing owner keeps paying the 2.5% motgage but is sells an option where he’s contractually required to sell it for the balance of the mortgage and rent the house for the current mortgage payment. In the old days there was a transferable loan, those don’t exist now but you need a new product to extract value out of an artificially low existing mortgage

That kind of exists with an assumable mortgage https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/what-is-an-assumable-mo...

A lot of non institutional cash buyers are using their equities to qualify as all cash, and those war chests are down too.

You’re probably better off buying at 7% than at 2.75% if housing prices are adjusted. You get the house for less, more room for profit when you sell. Also, if you’re force to sell, it’s better to do this on a loan of 750k rather than 1m.

Also if interest rates go down again in the next decade you can always refinance.

That all depends on how long you stay and inflation rates.

That's true but so far in many markets (like the Northeast) inventory doesn't seem to be rising. And thus prices aren't coming down.

So it's a double whammy of high interest rates with the pricing from 2021. It's wild out there folks.

> Cash buyers are generally about 25% of the market, which is a good chunk, but not enough to prop up prices if the other 75% of buyers they're competing with have had their purchasing power drop by 40% in the past 6 months.

In aggregate in the U.S., but this and much other commentary in this thread doesn't consider enough the vast variation in local markets. There are spots where there's a higher percentage of cash buyers due to wealthier people living there, a larger contingent of foreign buyers, or people who sold homes in very expensive areas to buy in slightly-less-expensive areas. I'm seeing this where I am, where people are moving from the city (where a 1 BR apartment is easily over 1M, a 2 is 1.5-2M, etc.) to the suburbs, where an 800K house is considered pocket change.

Not to mention some people have access to "cash" without having it. Some mortgage brokers, even from large banks, can arrange to let you use collateral to help guarantee a closing within a short time (eg. 30 days) letting you waive the finance contingency.

In a given real estate transaction, someone waiving financing contingency is going to fall in to the category of "cash buyer", and it might not be obvious that the cash shown in the holdings (if it is even shown to the seller as proof of funds) came from a loan.

The price is set by the ability of other buyers. Doesn’t matter what one individual can pay if the climate points to falling prices, why would they overpay when they think prices will fall? Prices are set by willingness to lend and interest rates, not by cash buyers.

I was just responding to the poster who wrote, 25 percent cash buyers isn't enough to prop up the market.

I don't know if it's enough or not, I was making the point that that 25 percent number is in aggregate for the entire large country and there are some insane skews in local markets where the number is much higher.

But to directly answer you, if inventory is dried up, no one is listing, and the stuff that comes online is still priced like mortgage rates are 3 percent, that might kill off a large pool of buyer demand but those cash buyers are still the marginal buyers and bidding wars will ensue just the same. I'm seeing this at present.

I think what will happen though is that those cash buyers, who are not stupid, will read the direction of the rest of the market and realise the music has stopped. At which point they won’t want to buy either.

Crashes often happen in slow motion, as this one is. It’ll take years to play out.

I hope so. There's a unique situation playing out that the inventory is extremely low in parts of the country where there hasn't been a lot of building (so I exclude places like Phoenix, Boise and Austin where there is a crash). So even if the non-stupid cash buyers pull back, and the financing buyers are priced out, it leaves a slim supply and a slim demand. But the supply didn't suddenly explode, who will sell their sub-3% mortgaged homes, even to downgrade or upgrade to a new home, unless they absolutely have no choice. That leaves family events like deaths, marriages, and such.

That's why - unfortunately - there could be no crash this time. Just a long period of stagnation and low turnover.

Well redundancy is the other event which forces a sale. In a recession that is what happens and it becomes a spiral. It is quite possible to see a long period of stagnation though with no nominal price drops, just real price drops, as may well happen with stock prices too (see Japan in the 90s to today). The rest of the world is ahead in entering a downturn, but a recession and mass layoffs is coming in the US too, particularly in the tech sector which is massively overvalued and overpaying for talent right now.

I think what we can say is that the boom is over, and this will impact stocks, real estate and jobs for at least a couple of years till assets become more affordable again.

What can change this is a fed pivot on interest rates, which will happen at some point when things really break (bond market, stock market) or inflation comes down a bit, but not until then, so unlike previous downturns the fed doesn't have much ammunition here as they need to look serious on inflation.