Tuesday, January 29, 2008

The Most Recent Case-Shiller data just came in

I decided to do the following exercise. Let us assume that house prices where fundamentally correct at the end of 2002 (I actually think this to be true), and four percent house price growth per annum is sustainable over the long run. Then how much would prices have to change from where they are now to get to the four percent growth path?

Here is what you get:

Phoenix -26.7%
Los Angeles -27.0%
San Diego -9.8%
San Francisco -11.7%
Denver 13.9%
Washington DC -20.9%
Miami -26.5%
Tampa -20.3%
Atlanta 6.5%
Chicago -4.6%
Boston 6.7%
Detroit 33.5%
Minneapolis 6.3%
Charlotte -1.3%
Las Vegas -26.5%
New York -12.5%
Cleveland 18.3%
Portland -24.7%
Dallas 13.2%
Seattle -24.7%

This says Denver, Atlanta and Minneapolis are OK, and Chicago is close to OK. Boston was probably overpriced in 2002 (see my paper with Chang and Cutts), but I find it plausible that it is near bottom, because it started its downturn before other markets. Four percent nominal growth is not in the cards for Detroit and Cleveland, and Dallas has never had a lot of house price growth, so don't get excited about their positive numbers. Florida, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Washington appear to have a way to go (although Washington and LA are very fragmented, a point I will get to in another post). I am not sure whether the Pacific Northwest is seriously overpriced, or whether it, like San Francisco, can sustain higher house price growth than the rest of the country.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dude,

You have to figure in the desirability of the area. That includes employment, weather, recreational opportunities. I don't think Detroit is 30+% undervalued, it's just not going to have the draw to get better than 4% a year.

Westside Bubble said...

Interesting. For a similar methodology on the Westside of Los Angeles that suggests around a 40% drop, see here.

tew said...

The only hope for the glamour markets is sustained buying by overseas investors / second home purchasers. For would be first time home buyers this will be terrible news - elevated prices with less supply available to citizens - but that's what the politicians are aiming for. The dollar's demise is the primary tool.

That said, remember that even 4% annual growth on a repeat sales, quality adjusted basis is 1.5% real assuming a 2.5% inflation rate. That's darned good for real estate on average and better than Shiller's long term U.S. calculations.

I have one lingering question: If housing is included in CPI (via owner's equivalent rent) how can home prices rise faster than inflation over the (very) long term?

Anonymous said...

^^Thanks!!

婚前徵信婚姻感情大陸抓姦外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回大陸抓姦離婚工商徵信婚前徵信外遇抓姦感情挽回尋人大陸抓姦離婚家暴工商徵信法律諮詢跟蹤工商徵信婚前徵信感情挽回外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴尋人大陸抓姦離婚大陸抓姦外遇尋人家暴工商徵信法律諮詢家暴感情挽回大陸抓姦外遇婚前徵信離婚尋人工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信大陸抓姦尋人感情挽回外遇抓姦婚前徵信感情挽回尋人大陸抓姦工商徵信法律諮詢離婚家暴工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回大陸抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回法律諮詢離婚感情挽回婚前徵信外遇抓姦家暴尋人工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回">徵大陸抓姦離婚婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回法律諮詢