Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Confounded

Bubble Trouble? Not Likely

Recommended Posts

Below is a piece of Classic retro House Price Analysis for the US. It uses all the house price clichés and makes enjoyable reading especially as this was the sort of analysis being produced less than 6 months ago here.

http://real.wharton.upenn.edu/~sinai/paper...ble_Trouble.pdf

Bubble Trouble? Not Likely.

By CHRIS MAYER and TODD SINAI

September 19, 2005

For the past several years, Chicken Littles have squawked that the sky -- or the ceiling --

is about to fall on the housing market. And it's tempting to believe them. The market sure

feels like a bubble: The rampant growth of house prices over the past decade, the rising

price of houses relative to rent and the astonishing gap in many cities between price and

income are almost unprecedented in recent history. The last time things felt this way, in

the late 1980s, real house prices subsequently dropped by one-third in cities like Boston

and Los Angeles.

Yet basic economic logic suggests that this apparent evidence of a bubble is anything but.

Even in the highest-price cities, housing is, at most, slightly more expensive than

average. Here's why: While house prices over the last decade have gone through the roof,

the annual cost of owning a house has not.

* * *

The annual cost of owning, not the price of the house itself, is what homebuyers should

(and do) consider when contemplating a purchase. And when comparing the cost of

owning with annual rent or annual income -- which is a good way of determining whether

house prices are out of whack in relation to the rental market or families' ability to pay --

annual cost is the right measure to use. That cost is simply the net cash outflow required

to own a house for a year -- namely, the after-tax cost of financing the purchase price

either by borrowing or through the lost risk-adjusted return on the equity tied up in the

house, plus carrying costs such as maintenance and economic depreciation -- less the

expected appreciation on the property.

We, along with Charles Himmelberg, a research economist at the Federal Reserve Bank

of New York, computed annual housing costs for 46 housing markets from 1980 to 2004

in a study due to be published this fall in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. Our

findings are striking. In none of the hottest housing markets did the ratio of the cost of

owning to rent in 2004 exceed the average over the sample period in their own market by

more than 13%. The highest was in Portland, Ore. Miami's ratio was 12% above average.

But the ratios in the other oft-cited "bubble" cities such as Boston, L.A., New York and

San Francisco were no more than 3% above their long-run averages. A similar pattern

arises when we compare a city's cost of housing to its mean family income.

By contrast, in the late '80s, immediately prior to the large house-price declines of the

early '90s, the ratio of the annual cost of owning to rent peaked 52% above the long-run

average in San Francisco and New York. Boston and L.A. topped out, respectively, at

37% and 42% above the long-run average. Even allowing for growth in house prices

during 2005, it is clear that while owning a house is not cheap, it is not inordinately

expensive by historical standards.

Portland and Miami, and to a degree San Diego, are cities where we have a nascent

concern. In those cities, the previous peaks exceeded 2004 levels by just 14 (Portland) to

25 (San Diego) percentage points. Of course, we don't know what ratio of owning to

renting costs, or owning costs to income, would precipitate declines in house prices. But

in these three cities the ratio of the cost of owning to the cost of renting was higher in

2004 than in at least 17 of the prior 25 years. In almost all other cities, the annual cost of

owning in 2004 was no higher than their median values over the previous 25 years.

The number one reason the current cost of owning differs so much from the price of a

house is the historically low level of real, long-term interest rates. Low rates reduce the

yearly cost of financing and lessen the cost of tying up capital in the house. At a lower

cost-per-dollar of housing, families are willing to spend more for a house, bidding up

prices. A further decline in interest rates yields an even greater percentage reduction in

the cost of owning because the base cost is already low. This relationship helps explain

the increasing growth rates of house prices in the last several years in those cities where

new home building is constrained by scarce land and regulation. (Ease of development is

why the dislocation caused by Hurricane Katrina should have little lasting effect in many

Southern markets around New Orleans, despite the inevitable near-term disruptions. For

example, even in the face of strong population growth, Houston and Dallas have seen no

real house-price increase over the last 30 years.)

On top of that, the priciest U.S. markets are themselves the most sensitive to interest

rates. These cities have the highest rates of expected house price appreciation and thus

their costs of owning -- which are reduced by capital gains -- are especially low relative

to their prices. And a given change in interest rates has a larger percentage effect in those

places where the cost of owning is the lowest.

Even the fact that some cities have higher price-to-rent ratios than others does not

necessarily make owning there more expensive than renting. For example, the growth

rate of house prices in San Francisco has exceeded the national average for more than 60

years, so relatively high financing costs are offset by above-average expected capital

gains, reducing the owning cost-to-rent ratio. Indeed, owning a house in San Francisco is

like buying a growth stock -- it may have a high price-to-earnings ratio, but no higher a

risk-adjusted return.

We obviously don't think the sky's the limit for house prices. But when you combine the

annual cost concept with recent growth in rents and incomes, today's pricing looks

justifiable in most of the U.S. Despite all the talk of a bubble, we find little evidence that

house prices are being bid up based on unreasonable expectations of future price growth.

While annual costs have risen a bit faster than rents or incomes in the past decade, they

started from a historic circa-1995 low in most cities. (A caution: Our study did not

consider condominiums or second homes, where new construction is much easier and

investors are more prevalent.)

Of course, the same logic that says today's market price of housing is reasonable also

implies that house prices are especially sensitive to real, long-term interest rates. In the

absence of an offsetting increase in housing demand, an unanticipated rise in real

mortgage rates could cause appreciable declines in house prices. For this reason we don't

think speculation is justified in the housing market -- gambling on above-average capital

gains is simply an interest-rate bet.

Mr. Mayer is Paul Milstein Professor of Real Estate at Columbia Business School. Mr.

Sinai is associate professor of Real Estate at Wharton

This commentary appeared in the Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2005

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1127084...5544394,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 349 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.