Housing Bubble Trouble: Have We Been Living Beyond Our Means?

With new home slaes down 10.5 percent in February, and with home prices declining for the fourth month in a row, it's high time for a sober look at the consequences of a major housing correction. The Federal Reserve, Wall Street economists, and other observers of the U.S. economy are closely watching the housing market because it has been a key driver of economic growth over the past several years.

Roughly a quarter of the jobs created since the 2001 recession have been in construction, real estate, and mortgage finance. Even more important, consumers have withdrawn $2.5 trillion in equity from their homes during this time, spending as much as half of it and thus making a huge contribution to the growth the U.S. economy has enjoyed in recent years (consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of GDP).

But consumers cannot keep spending more than they make. Eventually, home prices will flatten, the flood of "cash out" refinancings will become a trickle, and consumer spending will slow, as will job creation in housing-related industries. The big question is this: Will the housing sector experience a soft landing and slow the economy or a hard landing that pushes us into recession?

Countless articles in the financial and popular press have now been devoted to the question of whether we are in a housing "bubble." It is a favorite topic of many liberal economists, columnists, and bloggers, who argue that President Bush's tax cuts and other policies have created a hollow and unsustainable economy. They are laying the groundwork to hang a housing bust around the necks of President Bush and congressional Republicans.

Economic observers on the right have been strangely silent on this debate. A few conservatives have argued that the record appreciation of home prices is justified by economic fundamentals. Others, who apparently slept through the 80 percent decline in the NASDAQ, don't believe bubbles are possible in a free market economy. Certainly most conservatives have an innate optimism about America and the resilience of its free market economy, and a strong and well-justified aversion to doomsayers. And naturally, the White House and congressional Republicans have no interest in highlighting the vulnerabilities of the economy.

Yet the concerns about unsustainable growth in consumer debt and home prices are not easily dismissed. A weakening housing market could transform what has been a virtuous cycle into a vicious one, substantially reducing economic growth during the next couple of years (and going into the 2008 election). If economic analysts on the right ignore this risk, they may be blindsided by a weaker economy. They will also be unprepared to answer those on the left who will blame tax cuts for what could be a painful unwinding of a credit bubble that, in fact, was fueled by a loose monetary policy from 2002 to 2004.

THE CRUX OF THE DEBATE IS HOUSE PRICES. If the inflated prices are justified by economic fundamentals and sustainable, then the 82 percent increase in mortgage debt since 2000 will probably turn out to be innocuous and the risks to the economy minimal. If, on the other hand, prices are out of whack, painful adjustments lie ahead.

Unfortunately, the weight of the evidence strongly suggests a bubble. The price of the median home is up an inflation-adjusted 50 percent during the last five years, an unprecedented national increase. It is true, as Alan Greenspan and others have observed, that real estate is regional, and much of the country has not experienced significant price gains. However, prices are overextended in enough areas that a real estate correction would have national fallout. The mortgage insurance company PMI estimates that regions accounting for more than 40 percent of the nation's housing stock are overvalued by more than 15 percent. Other estimates of overvaluation are much higher.

Economists at international banking giant HSBC have identified 18 states and the District of Columbia as "bubble zones." (Chart not posted on web site) House prices in these zones look remarkably similar to the rise in the S&P 500 during the 1990s stock market bubble. They have dangerously diverged from historic valuation trends, and thus are very likely to drop during the next few years.

Just as cheerleaders of the high-tech bubble of the late 1990s developed ever more creative explanations for why traditional metrics of valuing stocks no longer applied, the same has been true during the housing bubble. Housing bulls point to immigration, building restrictions, Baby Boomer demand for second homes, and other seemingly plausible justifications for skyrocketing home prices. But examining the value of housing using time-tested and common-sense metrics such as price-to-income and price-to-rent ratios suggest the gains in the bubble areas can't be explained by economic fundamentals.

Consider the price-to-income ratio (above, right), an obvious measure of affordability. This ratio has reached an unprecedented level in the bubble markets. While this ratio hovered around its average of 4-to-1 for the past 30 years, it has zoomed to nearly 8-to-1. The current figure is 3.6 standard deviations from its average level, which, if the data have a normal bell-shaped distribution, means the odds of the price-to-income ratio reaching this level would be less than 1 in 300. In other words, it is off the charts.

The National Association of Realtors recently produced an analysis of about 100 different metropolitan areas and found prices justified in every one. The NAR concludes it would practically take a depression for home values to drop 5 percent. But this is an awfully rosy scenario from a group that routinely warns of 15 percent declines should Congress even tinker with the home mortgage interest deduction.

Consider the case of the Washington, D.C., area. According to NAR, the price-to-income ratio has averaged about 2-1 for the past 25 years and now stands at a record 3.4-to-1, or 70 percent above its normal level. Assuming incomes grow 5 percent a year in the D.C. area (the average of the past decade), home prices would have to drop 25 percent for this ratio to return to its historic average within the next five years.

An even better indicator of how divorced home prices are from their underlying economic value is the price-to-rent ratio (see chart, top of next column). In the Washington, D.C., metro area, which had remained relatively constant for several decades, this ratio has soared since 2000. Yet home prices and rents should remain closely linked. Why would one buy a house, condo, or vacation home if it was significantly cheaper to rent it? Or why would an investor buy a property that rents for far less than his mortgage and other costs? Rent is a reality check because it reflects the actual earnings power of the asset.

Consider the example of a townhouse in Fairlington, a venerable apartment and townhouse community in the Virginia suburbs just a few miles from the nation's capital. It's an instructive example because there are hundreds of similar units, and those put on the market at the prevailing market price move quickly. A typical three bedroom townhouse in Fairlington recently sold for $575,000. Assuming the owner put 10 percent down and took out a traditional 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, the monthly payment would be just under $3,200. Add in property taxes, a condo fee, and the tax breaks for home ownership, and the cost of owning this unit comes to about $3,000 a month. (Note that this analysis takes into account the lower cost of owning due to low interest rates and ignores the $57,500 down payment.) Yet the very same place rents for no more than $1,700 a month, or just over half the cost of ownership.

Why own it? One powerful reason must be an expected profit down the road. People are buying in the face of sky-high prices because they've seen so many of their friends or relatives make a fortune in real estate; besides (they tell themselves), everyone knows real estate prices never fall. As with the stock market during the tech bubble, many are basing purchasing decisions not on underlying economic value, but on what they think they can sell a property for in the future--the very definition of a speculative bubble.

NOT ONLY ARE HOUSE PRICES at extreme levels by traditional measures, but the manner in which home purchases have been financed in recent years is also disconcerting. Consider the growth of interest-only and "pay-option" adjustable rate mortgages--loans that initially don't require borrowers to repay principal. With the latter, also known as an option-ARM, the outstanding balance owed can actually get bigger every month. A few years ago these loans barely existed. Last year they accounted for more than a third of new loans (see chart at right). What's worse, the vast majority of these loans were extended based on "stated income," which means the bank didn't verify the income of the borrower. Of course, consumers usually have to pay more if they don't provide tax and payroll records to the bank to verify their income. Common sense suggests many are fibbing about their income to qualify for a larger loan.

Such loans are risky because after an initial period of three or five years with low rates and no principal payments, the loans "reset," and consumers can experience 50 percent or even 100 percent increases in their monthly payments. About $2 trillion in loans, or a quarter of outstanding mortgage debt, will reset in this fashion during the next two years according to Economy.com. Therefore, millions of households are about to experience significant payment shock.

A recent study by First American Corp. shows that many of the borrowers who have taken advantage of the lowest teaser rates and are going to experience the greatest payment increases have little or even negative equity in their homes. Fully 22 percent of the borrowers who borrowed at initial rates of 2.5 percent or less during the past two years have negative equity in their homes, and 40 percent have less than 10 percent equity. The study also finds that a third of people who took out adjustable rate mortgages last year have negative equity and 52 percent have less than 10 percent equity. How is this possible? One reason is that 43 percent of first-time home buyers paid no down payment last year.

If this isn't a housing mania, why have so many people embraced financing schemes that leave them vulnerable to higher interest rates or even a modest correction in home prices? The nation's bank regulators have seen enough and have issued draft rules that will take effect this spring requiring banks to tighten standards on loans where the consumer isn't required to pay principal up front. That's going to tighten credit in the high cost markets, reduce demand for housing and put downward pressure on home prices.

WHILE THE EVIDENCE OF A HOUSING BUBBLE is overwhelming, it isn't definitive. But what isn't debatable is that one cannot forever spend more money than one earns--yet this is exactly what consumers have been doing. For the past five years, Americans have spent more than they have earned--last year, the net borrowing amounted to 3.7 percent of GDP, or over $500 billion. The high level of spending compared with disposable income is also in uncharted territory.

It's no coincidence that the above chart closely tracks the growth in spending financed by mortgage debt, the drop in the savings rate, and the growth in the current account deficit. They all are measuring the same phenomenon--spending outpacing income.

The chart (below, right) shows mortgage equity withdrawal (MEW) as a share of disposable income. MEW comes from three sources. It comes from cash-out refinancing, from home sales where people put down a smaller downpayment for the new house than the equity in the old place, and from home equity loans. According to ISI, a Wall Street research firm where I work, last year MEW amounted to $751 billion, more than 8 percent of disposable income and twice the peak reached in the late 1980s. Alan Greenspan estimates that about half of MEW gets spent, so in 2005 that was about $375 billion. This figure was up from about $306 billion in 2004, which means spending financed by withdrawing home equity added 0.6 percent to GDP in 2005. Add in employment and other factors, and the housing boom has added up to one percentage point to economic growth in each of the past few years.

If this borrowing of home equity remains very high but slows from current levels, which is a near certainty if home prices flatten, it would have a depressing effect on the economy. For example, if home prices stabilize and it takes two years for net mortgage equity withdrawal to slow to $259 billion--the level in 2001--this would subtract two percentage points from economic growth during the next two years. The economy's average growth rate is about 3.5 percent per year, so all else being equal, this would cut economic growth to 2.5 percent.

Then there is the fact that about one-quarter of the job growth since the recession has been directly related to the housing boom, so a flat housing market could slow job creation and reduce economic growth even further. This is what has occurred in Great Britain and Australia, where home prices stabilized after a long boom. In Britain, for example, consumer spending slowed dramatically and GDP growth fell from about 4 percent in 2003 to half that the following year.

Even flat home prices would therefore slow economic growth unless other parts of the economy rapidly accelerate. But a hard landing--meaning a recession--is a real risk. If home prices fall modestly, millions of homeowners will see their equity wiped out. Many of those with the least amount of equity, as we've already shown, are going to face significant increases in their monthly payments. So what has been a virtuous but unsustainable cycle for the economy--higher home prices, more borrowing against home equity, higher spending, increased job creation, even higher home prices--could easily reverse and become a vicious cycle--higher monthly payments, declining home prices, less spending, job losses, foreclosures, even lower home prices.

To be sure, there are some very positive trends in our economy, especially strong productivity, and most likely a housing correction won't push the economy into recession. But even a gradual reversal of the housing boom could result in sluggish economic growth and painful adjustments for those in the bubble areas who incurred too much debt during the run-up in house prices. Conservatives ought to seriously consider these risks so they won't be surprised or caught flat-footed if a housing correction occurs.

Andrew Laperriere is a managing director in the Washington office of ISI Group, a Wall Street economic research and brokerage firm.

NP-I am use to you being *snarky* with me, isn't that the word you like to use? but why don't you admit how nasty you were to the other's here on thier knowledge of cities with real estate *Bubbles*?

Yes your money is none of my buisness, so why do you make it your buisness to say things like I have a bigger house than you, more acreage etc..?

You are hell bent on always wanting to be right admit it..
You are a smart woman on some things I will give you that but you sure the heck haven't mastered every known subject to man, if you have please let me donate to you're cause, but since you haven't you are right donated to a worthy cause a poster on another site is doing for the troops.

Nothing wrong with that....You don't always have to be a pit-bill why not be a lapso alpso sometime...Peace! Its friday!

Oh oh...back the ungrammatical, badly written posts. What's the matter, you forgot that that is your MO/persona here, and slipped up?

I suggest that you read ALL of my posts and the replies I got, on this thread. If you still have problems with comprehension, please get someone to help you.

FWIW, and LORD knows WHY I am bothering to explain this to you, of all people...no, I don't know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING and have never claimed to. Unlike many here, I do NOT post authoritatively about things I don't know anything about. As a matter of fact, if I do post, I DO know about the topic.

Who asked yopu to donate to me and why on earth should you do so? ROTFLOL

My charitable contributions are none of your business and they are something I don't talk about; especially NOT here.

Are you moribundly unaware of what Jim Robinson posted to FR about cp? Are you THAT dense, to not realize that posting about that topic, after Jim posted what he has, is probably a banable offense? Are you begging to be banned a second time?

Pssssssssssssssssssssssssst.........laney/missyme/****** (your real name, which I do know, but wont post ), can't you ever post to any thread, without making it ALL ABOUT YOU? This thread's topic is about real estate and the "BUBBLE" which is not national, but which people have tried to claim it is/is going to be, for the past TWO/THREE years.

I happen to know a LOT of FREEPERS well; well enough to know them off line. My FREEPER FRiends come from all walks of life and social strata. And while I don't "know" the other poster, whom I "bet"; I stand by it. And might I suggest that YOU don't know me at all and so, you have NO idea what kind of a house I live in.

OTOH, a 15,000 square foot house on a measly acre and 1/2 ( or was that an acre and ? YOU and I should reread his post about that ), would be a behemoth on a postage stamp. :-)

And you have to go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back on this thread, USED TO LIVE IN THE LOOP, to find the thread's topic actually being discussed. ;^)

And posting this to someone, whose last post was a more than a day ago and had nothing at all to do with what you wrote, whilst also pinging others ( was that an invite to pile on and continue in your baiting ?), attempting to incite or further a flame war, is pretty pathetic; not to mention against FR's posting rules.

But then, since you are incapable of actually debating the topic of this thread, have no facts to support your position, I guess that's all you can do. Pity that...........

This is so far removed from the thread's topic, as to be pathetically bizarre.

I was going to completely ignore your post, however, for the benefit of lurkers and any you, I'm going to correct the implications that your snide post has made and also supply facts; which are glaringly missing from your assumptions and misstatements.

First of all, you came quite late to the pile on, of me. If you had bothered to read all of the posts, from this back and forth, that has devolved into this baseless sniping, baiting, and flame war against me, you would have seen that the person, whom you are so cavalierly defending, began the one upsmanship peeing contest. He's also lied; BTW.

On this thread, he has claimed to have lived in Chicago for ten years. On his personal page, he states, quite clearly, that he lived in Cjhicago for eightyears.

He said that he lived in the LOOP. Unlike you, I know what the size of those apartments are. I also know what size apartment I lived in. My claiming tot have lived in a far larger place, wasn't an educated "guess"; it was a factual deduction and was a refutation to his statement about how EVERYONE who lives in a big city is squeezed, "sardine-like" into tiny spaces.

Following your own caviling, re that it is "risky to bet that your house is larger than theirs"...yes, I agree, but since you not only don't know about 1) the housing market in Chicago 2) the size of various domiciles there 3) nor anything whatsoever about the size of the places I have and/or do live in, you should stop embarrassing yourself,now, in the attempt to make it appear that it is I who began this and am the one making an outlandish assumption about someone else's square footage. And as to the "bad form", tell that to yourself, dear, regarding your high handed pile-on. LOL

All hat and no cattle is the phrase you've been struggling to find.

And no, there isn't a posting rule about asking how much someone else has. OTOH, there IS a FR rule ( which surely you MUST know of, since you've been here as long as you have ) about flaming and baiting and piling on. Funny, isn't it, that you keep breaking that FR rule; pet? ;^)

"On this thread, he has claimed to have lived in Chicago for ten years. On his personal page, he states, quite clearly, that he lived in Cjhicago for eightyears."

Okay,NP, you caught me. I actually lived in Skokie for 1.5 years and on Erie St., Chicago For just over 8 years. Overall, about 10 years.

I've been inside many of the view homes on the Gold Cost. Funny thing. Most have the shades drawn because the sunlight is too bright, as it reflects off the lake.

And then winter comes and you watch as the boaters move the boats off the lake into storage, just before the lake ices over for the winter. For about 4 months it's too damn cold to go outside.

Right on. No bubble in Chicago. (sarcasm)

Np is desperate to "win" this, so please let this be the last post. Let's graciously let NP have the last word.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.