We are, once again, experiencing one of the greatest housing booms in United States history.
How long this will last and where it is heading next are impossible to know now.
But it is time to take notice: My data shows that this is the United States’ third biggest housing boom in the modern era.
Since February 2012, when the price declines associated with the last financial crisis ended, prices for existing homes in the United States have been rising steadily and enormously. According to the S&P/CoreLogic/Case-Shiller National Home Price Index (which I helped to create) as of September, the prices were 53 percent higher than they were at the bottom of the market in 2012.
That means, on average, a house that sold for, say, $200,000 in 2012 would bring over $300,000 in September.
Even after factoring in Consumer Price Index inflation, real existing home prices were up almost 40 percent during that period. That is a substantial increase in less than seven years.
In fact, based on my data, it amounts to the third strongest national boom in real terms since the Consumer Price Index began in 1913, behind only the explosive run-up in prices that led to the great financial crisis of a decade ago, and one connected with World War II and the great postwar Baby Boom.
The No. 1 boom occurred from February 1997 to October 2006, when real prices of existing United States homes rose 74 percent. This was a period of intense speculative enthusiasm — for houses and for financial instruments based on mortgages as investments — and it was also a time of great regulatory complacency. The term “flipping houses” became popular then. People exploited the boom by buying homes and selling them only months later at a huge profit.
That boom ended disastrously. Soaring valuations collapsed with a 35 percent drop in real prices for existing homes, ushering in the financial crisis that enveloped the world in 2008 and 2009.
The second greatest boom, from 1942 to 1947, had more benign consequences. Over this five-year interval, real prices of existing homes rose 60 percent.
Booms and busts are rooted in popular narratives with complex social-psychological roots. This boom centered on a war-induced housing shortage, an enormous increase in the number of new babies and families who would need housing after the war, and the 1944 G.I. Bill, which subsidized home-buying by veterans. Home prices did not fall significantly after this boom ended.
Today, signs of weakness in the housing market are being taken by some as a signal that the prices of single-family homes may fall soon, as they did sharply after 2006. The leading indicators, which include building permits and sales of both existing and new homes, have all been declining in recent months.
But with few examples of extreme booms, we cannot be sure what such indicators mean for the current market.
Low interest rates — imposed by the Federal Reserve and other central banks in reaction to the financial crisis — are the most popular culprit in the current boom. There is some apparent merit to this view, since these three biggest nationwide housing booms all included very low interest rates.
But the market reaction to interest rates is hardly immediate or predictable. The housing market does not react as directly as you might expect to interest rate movements. Over the nearly seven years of the current boom, from February 2012 to the present, all major domestic interest rates have increased, not decreased. So, while interest rates have been low, they have moved the wrong way, yet the boom has continued.
Another explanation is simple economic growth. But, as a matter of history, prices of existing homes — as opposed to the supply of newly built homes — have generally not responded to economic growth. There was only a 20 percent increase in real prices of existing homes in the 50 years from 1950 to 2000 despite a sixfold increase in real G.D.P.
The simplest narrative being given for the current boom is just that the 2008-2009 financial crisis and the so-called Great Recession are over and home prices are returning to normal.
But that explanation does not cut it either. In September they were 11 percent higher than at the 2006 peak in nominal terms, and almost as high in real terms. This is not a return to normal, but a market that appears to be rising to a record.
It is difficult to assess the contribution of President Trump to the current boom.
It is certainly less obvious than the role of President George W. Bush in the 1997-2006 boom. Mr. Bush extolled the benefits of “the ownership society” and in 2003 he signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, which subsidized home purchases. In his 2004 re-election bid he boldly asserted: “We want more people owning their own home.” This seems to have contributed to an atmosphere of high expectations for home price increases.
The Trump administration’s attitude toward housing is less clear. President Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” has overtones of the “American dream.” But provisions of his Tax Reform and Jobs Act of 2017 were unfriendly to homeowners.
Even without major further interest rate increases, there would seem to be a limit on how much the prices of existing homes can increase. After all, people must struggle to cover a range of living expenses, and builders are supplying fresh new offerings to compete with the existing houses on the market.
Perhaps the home price increases are now a self-fulfilling prophesy. As John Maynard Keynes argued in his 1936 “General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” people seem to have a “simple faith in the conventional basis of valuation.”
If the conventional basis is now that home prices are going up 5 percent a year, then sellers, who would otherwise have no idea what to ask for their houses, will just put a price based on this convention. And likewise buyers will not feel they are paying too much if they accept the convention. In the United States, we may believe that the process is all part of the “American dream.”
It can’t go on forever, of course. But when it will end isn’t knowable. The data can’t tell us when prices will level off, or whether they will plunge catastrophically. All we do know is that prices have been roaring higher at a speed rarely seen in American history.
Robert J. Shiller is Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/business/housing-boom-how-long-can-it-last.html
Admire Nobel-prize winning economist Robert Shiller but this article seems to reflect a historian’s perspective from the “ivory tower” and an economist who’s reluctant to acknowledge what real estate agents, mortgage brokers as well as buyers and sellers already believe.
What’s your take — are we already past peak?
What’s your take?
I love Shiller because he is so humble about the housing market when he could be the arrogant ivy-leaguer who designed the C-S Index.
When he talks/writes, he is always careful to say he doesn’t know for sure how it will turn out.
At the bottom of this article he gives us an explanation that is as good as any. We know that the market will determined by those who know the least – and I think he nails it here for those people:
Perhaps the home price increases are now a self-fulfilling prophesy. As John Maynard Keynes argued in his 1936 “General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” people seem to have a “simple faith in the conventional basis of valuation.”
If the conventional basis is now that home prices are going up 5 percent a year, then sellers, who would otherwise have no idea what to ask for their houses, will just put a price based on this convention. And likewise buyers will not feel they are paying too much if they accept the convention. In the United States, we may believe that the process is all part of the “American dream.”
Are we already past peak?
Absolutely, for dated two-story tract houses, fixers, inferior locations, funky floor plans, and anything that isn’t a creampuff.
Plenty of upside for newer stylish one-story homes, the turnkey homes in great school districts like Carmel Valley, and anything rich people would like.
You always publish the Case Shiller report but it does have some serious flaws on looking at the nation as a whole for what is happening in real estate. There are 3000 municipalities nationwide and Case Shiller uses only 20 of them. Major cities like Houston and San Jose are not included along with many in the mid west and back east. It also only factors in single family detached properties in the figures it put’s out. Condos along with new construction is not reported, which is a huge deal when trying to look at the numbers. They also report on home prices on a two month lag. It’s actually 4 to 6 months when they consider closed contracts. So if they report in November on the closed contracts, those sales could of occurred in September and October. Just my opinion. Might be good for you in San Diego and me in Phoenix but looking at the market nationwide it’s not a very good indication. Thanks for the blog.
You always publish the Case Shiller report…
I only publish the San Diego CSI and its flaws are fairly well-known to the people reading this blog. The purpose is to have a trend to follow, and though it is imperfect, it’s all we got.
I wish there was some money in devising a new metric – you and me would do it!
I came up with a formula that one night based on SP:LP, market time, age, etc. It was a mess.
If it was easy to come up with an accurate algorithm it would have been done already. My take is it’s a drunkards walk, just slowly and mostly slightly uphill over time at the ratio of population increased and the price of bricks and sticks.
When was the last time the price of a bag of cement dropped?
If prices are high more building takes place, if prices are low less does reducing supply, the rules of supply and demand always function.
the rules of supply and demand always function.
The disconnect in housing is that anything built now is for high-enders only, and the only affordable housing to be built will need to be heavily subsidized by the government.
Whether it’s standard tract houses in Carlsbad selling for $1,000,000+ or 1-br apartments in Vista being rented for $1,900 per month, you gotta make bank to afford newly-built homes.
Thus, there is no relief coming for regular people – ever. If you want to spend less, the only choice is to leave town.