January 02, 2006

Important NY Times Krugman Editorial: The overall market value of housing has lost touch with economic reality - and there's a nasty correction ahead

Excellent, reasoned opinion today by Krugman in the Times. I'll post the whole editorial here (thanks HP reader Susan). I highly recommend reading the whole article. I've added a great chart from Shiller to accentuate the point Krugman makes, that the market has detached from reality.


January 2, 2006
No Bubble Trouble?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

In spite of record home prices, housing in most of America remains surprisingly affordable, thanks to low interest rates. That fact may seem to say that there's no housing bubble. But it doesn't.

To see why, we need to brush up on our economic geography and economic history. Let's start with the good news. A report in last week's Times summarized the results of a study by Moody's Economy.com, a research company, comparing the cost of home ownership with family incomes.

The study found that for the nation as a whole, the cost of owning the median home is still only 23.7 percent of median family income, which is higher than a few years ago but well below the peak of more than 30 percent reached in the early 1980's.

Now for the economic geography. Last summer I suggested that when discussing housing, we should think of America as two countries, Flatland and the ZonedZone.

In Flatland, there's plenty of room to build houses, so house prices mainly reflect the cost of construction. As a result, Flatland is pretty much immune to housing bubbles. And in Flatland, houses have, if anything, become easier to afford since 2000 because of falling interest rates.

In the Zoned Zone, by contrast, buildable lots are scarce, and house prices mainly reflect the price of these lots rather than the cost of construction. As a result, house prices in the Zoned Zone are much less tied down by economic fundamentals than prices in Flatland.

By my rough estimate, slightly under 30 percent of Americans live in theZoned Zone, which comprises most of the Northeast Corridor, coastal Florida, much of the West Coast and a few other locations. So Economy.com's results on affordability aren't surprising: most families live in Flatland, and haven't seen a big rise in the cost of home ownership. But because Zoned Zone homes are much more expensive than Flatland homes, the Zone looms much larger in the housing story than its share of the population might suggest.

By my estimate, more than half of the total market value of homes in the United States lies in the Zoned Zone.And because home prices have risen much more rapidly in the Zone than in the rest of the country, the Zoned Zone accounts for the great bulk of the surge in housing market value over the last five years.

So if we want to ask whether housing values make sense, data on the median house nationwide are irrelevant. We need to focus on houses in the ZonedZone. And there the numbers are anything but reassuring.

In the Zoned Zone, the story that rising home prices have been offset by falling interest rates is all wrong: prices have risen so much that housing has become much less affordable. According to Economy.com, the cost of owning a home in the New York metropolitan area went from 25 percent of median income in 2000 to 38 percent today.

In Miami, the numbers were 21 percent and 42 percent, respectively; in Los Angeles, 31 percent and 55 percent.

Even so, the current cost of owning a home in the Zoned Zone isn't entirely unprecedented. Roughly similar percentages of median family income were needed to afford houses in the early 1980's. But that's hardly a comforting comparison, which is where the economic history comes in. You see, the unaffordability of housing in the early1980's led to an epic collapse in the housing industry. Housing starts fell from more than 2 million in 1978 to only 1.06 million in 1982. And the housing implosion was one of the main factors in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression, which brought the unemployment rate to a peak of 10.8 percent at the end of 1982.

It's also worth noting that the reason housing was so expensive in 1981 and1982 was that mortgage interest rates were extremely high. That made recovery easy, because all it took to make housing affordable again was for interest rates to return to normal levels. This time, with interest rates already low by historical standards, restoring affordability will require a big fall in housing prices.

So here's the bottom line: yes, northern Virginia, there is a housing bubble. (Northern Virginia, not Virginia as a whole. Only the Washington suburbs are in the Zoned Zone.) Part of the rise in housing values since 2000 was justified given the fall in interest rates, but at this point the overall market value of housing has lost touch with economic reality. And there's a nasty correction ahead.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is more clear everyday that the housing bubble is an international tendency. In Spain we are suffering it, and I am afraid that the landing will be really painful, because our economy relies greatly in construction.

Anonymous said...

Not that it matters now, but the blame of this issue can be rested right at the doorstep of the FOMC of which Alan Greenspan chairs.

The Federal Reserves primary job is to control prices, not micro manage the economy.

Anonymous said...

About Spain. UK, Spain and USA go hand in hand into the bubble but there is something far more worrisome in Spain. UK and USA have seen previous drops in housing prices and it does not go against traditional wisdom. In Spain many have seen the trouble ahead but in a way it goes against our insticts since it is not in the collective memory the results of a prices collapse.

Anonymous said...

About Spain. UK, Spain and USA go hand in hand into the bubble but there is something far more worrisome about the bubble in Spain. UK and USA have seen previous severe drops in housing prices and it does not go against traditional wisdom. In Spain many have seen the trouble ahead but in a way it goes against our insticts since such prices collapse it is not recorded in the collective memory .

Anonymous said...

Krugman has pointed out in a very convincing way what we all (in anecdotal fashion) knew to be true. How many have heard the stories of buyers camping out overnight to bid, site unseen, $400,000+ on a small Brooklyn co-op? I moved to Manhattan in 1993 and saw housing price increases of something on the order of 300-400% since then. I now live in Boston which is even worse. Great article in last Sunday's Boston Globe on how Boston has literally regulated itself into a housing crisis.

I have degrees in economics and finance and remember vividly the housing collapse of the early nineties. I have also witnessed several stock market crashes. One thing I do know is that asset values, in ANY market, over the long term, ALWAYS regress to the mean. Since long term real estate values increase maybe 7% annually we are essentially guaranteed price deflation in urban U.S. real estate over the next few years. I agree with Krugman about the housing bubble. I get more convinced everytime the "experts" tells me why it is different this time and use ridiculous circular reasoning to defend unprecedented appreciation in real estate values.

Anonymous said...

Here's the Boston Globe article if anyone is interested:

http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2006/01/01/housing_slowdown_blamed_on_local_rules/

Anonymous said...

Another view on the zoned vs non zoned could also be called economically HOT vs economically COOL areas. ie: Detroit is economically cool while Boston is economically hot. Sandusky is economically cool while SanFrancisco is economically hot.

When the low interest rates were "poured" like gasoline on an enconomically hot area you get a massive growth in housing value that results in a bubble. Many of the economically cool area are losers in the Globalization race. People tend to move to areas that economically hot and that are Globalization winners.

Other hot areas are popular retirement destinations where the influx of wealthy retirees with money creates it own boom and BUBBLE! If given the choice between Lima, Ohio and Santa Barbara, California most would take Santa Barbara... and so it goes.. By the way the only ones left in Lima, a globalism loser, are those who could not afford to move out... I remember reading a article by Governor Taft of Ohio. He said that major corps are not interested in Ohio. He showed that 90% of all Venture capital goes to California. Microsoft or Intel simply are are not interested in Ohio part of the declining Rust Belt.

Anonymous said...

Wow, when Krugman sticks to Econ 101 he can really make a good point.
He might have also added that Flatland is already feeling the effects of the "housing bubble" in the form of population shift.

Dogcrap Green said...

I liked your comment about yes Northern Virgina, not Virgina as a whole.

Could not agree with you more on this.

A condo in Northern Virgina cost 5 times more than a single family hoe in the Richmond, or the the Baltimore. And there are plenty of people that commute to DC from both Baltimore and Richmond.

It is insane, but as you suggest by that comment. There are shelters from the upcoming storm.

One is within the inner city - even DC has good neighboorhoods that are 3 times cheaper than Northern Virgina. Another choice, if you are lucky enough not to need a job withen a City's commute is to just get out of that market completly. The real estate bubble has left the country side far behind.

It's about time you see things in a different shade of light from the world is coming to and end PERIOD. Once upon a time the Phoenix area was a shelter from the California housing bubble. You condo over sure paid off. Now they say Texas is a shelter from the Phoenix bubble.

I went ahead and click on two of your adds. Keep up the go work and I might throw you three clicks next time

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why Northern Virginia gets put into the Zoned Zone? Is the zoning that strict there? It looks like building is marching out farther and farther from the city, unobstructed from my visits there. If this is true, the NOVA bubble burst will be even worse.

Anonymous said...

Great piece. When CNBC marches out the NAR/Building industry mouthpieces every day to say there is no NATIONAL housing bubble, you can almost see that "I did not know that tobacco was addictive, Senator" panache on their Brooks Bros suits, but technically they are not lying. There probably isn't a major bubble in Tulsa or Omaha, but the bubble in California and Boston is unprecedented and amazingly dependent on hokey financing schemes that are about to start collapsing in an accelerating chain reaction kind of way as soon as ANY depreciation happens.

Anonymous said...

re: "I'm not sure why Northern Virginia gets put into the Zoned Zone?"

I think "Northern VA" in this case is basically suburbs of Washington DC. They're already clear leaders in the collapse as we read here almost daily.

And yet...

I happened to be driving down I-95 through MD and VA around Christmas. I lost count of how many fields the usual suspects -- KB Home, Hovnanian, and Pulte come to mind first -- had just plowed in preparation for the spring "planting". At least a dozen sites.

And each one of those fields would have, what, fifty houses, at least?

And that is just what is in plain view of I-95 over maybe a hundred mile stretch.

But they hadn't started construction yet. It's unimaginable that they wouldn't try to pull the plug on those developments at this point.

Anonymous said...

Hi Fellow! I was just searching blogs,and I found yours! I like it!
If you have a moment, please visit my today's interest rates site.
Good luck!!