Not like that here in OK. We didn’t see a boom so no huge bust, but prices have barely budged in over 10 years. We live in a desirable suburb, good schools, etc. and our house would probably sell for only a few thousand more than what we paid for it 11 years ago, and that would be if we did some pricey updating. If we had to pay for that, a real estate commission, and the cost of moving and buying another place, it would gobble up so much of our equity that we couldn’t afford to buy a house any better than the one we are in. And that is assuming we could sell it at all. Houses are not selling even with sellers dropping the price.
I also see a lot of houses that were newly built 5 or 6 years ago that are now in foreclosure. It’s not a good market here at all.
Texas dodged the boom and bust to some degree because they had already changed their lending practices because of the S&L crisis in the 1980’s. Hence the term Texas Ratio, pertaining to the amount of outstanding loans a bank can have on the books relative to the entire amount of assets a bank has on its balance sheet. Additionally Texas is a non-judicial foreclosure state. Which means they are able to clear their REO properties quicker than a FL, NY and NJ where the process can lead to 400 + days foreclosure process.
Investors have absorbed nearly 40 percent of all home sales over the last four or five of years. And an astonishing 40% of all home sales have been cash deals. Historically that number is around 18%.
Besides the CRA one of the critical factors leading to the housing bust was the banks needed new customers. Approximately 32% of all homes in the US do not have mortgages. And with the baby boomers getting older and wealthier that number was only going to grow. The banks needed to attract renters and/or potentially risky borrowers to get become home owners. Hence all the crazy loan instruments.