Seattle Bubble

News & discussion about real estate & the housing bubble in the Seattle area.

Seattle Bubble - News & discussion about real estate & the housing bubble in the Seattle area.

Entries Tagged as 'roller_coaster'

King County Home Prices & Affordability 1950-2009 Q1

By The Tim on May 20th, 2009 at 5:00 AM · 85 Comments

A reader pointed out that I had not provided an updated chart of the long-term (50+ year) trend of local home prices since I originally posted my research in February 2008. So, here’s an updated look at the long-term trends in local home prices and affordability:

King County Median Home Prices: 1946-2009

So much for Steve Tytler’s famous “stair step” theory (which he was still espousing as recently as July 2008).

Note that in the above chart, each data point represents a 6-month average, and in the chart below, each represents a 12-month average. For 2009 we are using the 4-month average of January – April.

King County Affordability Index

I’d love to provide you with a more substantive post today, but I’m taking my birthday off (this post was pre-written last night). See you tomorrow.

Sources:
(1946-1992 Home Prices: Seattle Real Estate Research Report)
(1993-2009 Home Prices: NWMLS)
(Misc. Price Data: Seattle Times)
(Inflation Data: Bureau of Labor StatisticsConsumer Price Index)

(Household Income: US Census Bureau)
(1950-1970 Interest Rates: Financial Forecast Center)
(1971-2009 Interest Rates: Federal Reserve)

→ 85 CommentsCategories: Features · Statistics
Tags: , , , , , , ,

King County Affordability: 1950-2007

By The Tim on February 28th, 2008 at 12:06 PM · 35 Comments

When I posted last week’s 61-year home price history, I promised a follow-up on affordability. So, here it is.

Before I get to the chart, here’s a quick refresher on what the “affordability index” is, and what it isn’t. What it is is a simple measure that shows relationship between median home prices, median household incomes, and interest rates. It is calculated by determining the monthly payment (principal and interest) that would result from buying the median-priced home, assuming a 20% down payment and current interest rates on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, then comparing that to 30% of the monthly median household income (the standard measure of “affordable housing”). Thus, an affordability index of 100 means that the median household would pay exactly 30% of their monthly income toward the mortgage of the median-priced house. Above 100 is more affordable, while below 100 is less affordable.

The affordability index does not take into account lending standards or exotic mortgage availability. It also does not necessarily indicate that an area is overpriced if the affordability index is below 100. More desirable areas are inherently less affordable. No reasonable person would expect housing in Bismark, ND to have the same affordability index as New York, NY. What is somewhat instructive however, is comparing the affordability index of a given area to that same area’s affordability index in the past. How convenient then, that this is exactly what we are doing with this post.

What you see below is a graph of the Affordability Index for King County from 1950 through 2007. For ease of reference, I’ve overlaid the graph of inflation-adjusted home prices on the right axis, so you can see how the two relate. I want to note though, that when calculating the affordability index, actual home prices are used, not inflation-adjusted prices.

King County Affordability Index: 1950-2007
Click to enlarge

From 1950 to 1970, while home prices more or less just kept up with inflation, affordability was sky-high, reaching peaks as high as 227. Of course, it shouldn’t come as a real surprise that when home prices began to jump up in the mid ’70s, affordability dropped like a rock. Of course, home prices are only part of the equation. Affordability tanked from 1976 to 1981 not only due to a leap in home prices, but an even more extreme spike in interest rates. On the following graph you can see the other two components of the affordability index: median incomes and interest rates.

King County Incomes & Interest Rates: 1950-2007
Click to enlarge

I should point out that pre-1971 interest rate data is quite difficult to find, and I was forced to make my best estimate based on a chart of 30 Year FHA Mortgage Rates. Also, I believe that sometime during the period that is displayed on the graph, the “standard” mortgage shifted from a 15-year to a 30-year term. I couldn’t locate any data on historical mortgage standards to back that up, but maybe one of our resourceful readers can. Even with the ridiculously high interest rates of the early ’80s, the long-term average of the affordability index through the ’80s and ’90s comes out to 101.9. Here are the averages for each decade since the ’50s:

  • 1950s: 160.6
  • 1960s: 194.6
  • 1970s: 178.4
  • 1980s: 97.4
  • 1990s: 106.5
  • 2000-2007: 89.7

The affordability index for 2007 stood at 72.5, which is 29% lower than the 1980-1999 average. To get back in line with long-term trends, the affordability index would have to increase by approximately 40%. This could happen through increasing incomes, falling home prices, or falling interest rates. Lower rates seems fairly unlikely, so I’m predicting that it will be some combination of the first two, with the emphasis on the falling home prices.

This analysis may remind you of Deejayoh’s excellent post that compared disposable income, interest rates, and home prices from 1985 through 2007. The data is slightly different, but the conclusion is largely the same. Today’s home prices are seriously out of whack with long-term trends.

Sources:
(Home Prices: see this post)
(Household Income: US Census Bureau)
(1950-1970 Interest Rates: Financial Forecast Center)
(1971-2007 Interest Rates: Federal Reserve)

→ 35 CommentsCategories: Features · Statistics
Tags: , , ,

King County Home Prices: 1946-2007

By The Tim on February 19th, 2008 at 11:33 AM · 58 Comments

A while back (September 2006, to be more precise) the Seattle Times published a 22-year “analysis” of King County home prices, which essentially came to the conclusion that Seattle would be immune to the home price drops that were beginning to occur elsewhere around the country. Their graph of local home prices going back to 1984 was interesting, but I was frustrated by two things. First, that it was not adjusted for inflation, and second that it did not go back further.

A while later, I had a lengthy email conversation with local mortgage company owner Steve Tytler, in which he made the following claim:

Home prices in the Seattle area follow a very predictable pattern: 2-3 years of rapid appreciation followed by 4-5 years of virtually no appreciation. I call it a “stair step” pattern. Prices jump up, flatten out, jump up again, flat out, and so on. You will never see a major housing price crash here.

I wanted to do the research to find out whether or not Mr. Tytler’s claims hold water, and to improve upon the Seattle Times graph, but with reliable home price data from the NWMLS only going back to 1993, I was in a bit of a jam.

Thankfully, Mr. Tytler pointed me toward a source of home price information that goes further back than the available NWMLS reports we have previously relied on at Seattle Bubble. The Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report (originally known as the Seattle Real Estate Research Report) has been publishing local housing market information every six months since 1946. After doing some digging I discovered that the UW Special Collections has a complete set of the reports going all the way back to the beginning.

So, after more than a few Friday afternoons spent at the UW pouring through the old reports and hours spent merging the old data with the modern NWMLS data and adjusting for inflation, I have come up with the following graph. The red line shows inflation-adjusted median single-family home prices (in 2007 dollars) from 1946 through 2007. The gradient area depicts the year-over-year change in home prices.

King County Median Home Prices: 1946-2007
Click to enlarge

Looking at home price data this far back shows us a few interesting things. The first thing that jumps out at me is how flat the graph is from 1946 through about 1969. It would seem that as far as home prices are concerned, the early to mid 1970s was when Seattle made the transition from small town to real city. As such, I don’t think we can really gain any useful information from looking at home price patterns pre-1970.

The second thing I notice is that from 1969 to the present there have been three periods where prices have declined for more than a year:

  • 1969-1975 (6 years) – Total Drop: 21%
  • 1979-1985 (6 years) – Total Drop: 20%
  • 1990-1992 (2 years) – Total Drop: 5%

In fact, if you look at the graph from 1968 to 2000, it actually seems to support Steve Tytler’s “stair step” theory. The only problem is that there’s a spike from 1997 to 2000 that—if the stair-step pattern were to continue—should have been followed by 7-9 years of declining and/or flat prices. Instead, after a very short breather, prices only begin to skyrocket even further up.

Let’s look at the three “steps” from 1968 to 1997.

Step 1:
Jump: Fall ‘68 to Spring ‘69 – 11% in 6 months
Drop: Spring ‘69 to Spring ‘75 – -21% in 6 years
Peak to start of next big run-up: 7.5 years

Step 2:
Jump: Fall ‘76 to Spring ‘79 – 71% in 2.5 years
Drop: Spring ‘79 to Fall ‘85 – -20% in 6.5 years
Peak to start of next big run-up: 9.5 years

Step 3:
Jump: Fall ‘88 to Fall ‘90 – 41% in 2 years
Drop: Fall ‘90 to Fall ‘92 – -5% in 2 years
Peak to start of next big run-up: 6.5 years

So we’re looking at an average run-up of around 2 years, followed by a dropping/flat period of about 7.5 years. Now look at the present “step.”

Step 4?
Jump: Spring ‘97 to Spring ‘07 – 93% in 10 years

So, the current run-up has basically lasted five times as long as any previous spike in King County. All other factors being equal (which of course they aren’t), one could logically conclude that the upcoming period of dropping or flat prices will also last five times as long as previous steps, meaning we would be looking at 32-48 years of flat prices on the horizon.

Do I really think we’re facing 30+ years of flat prices? Probably not. Notice that previous year-over-year price declines have never exceeded 5% for more than a year and a half. We could easily correct for this extra-long run-up by having just 3-5 years of price declines in the 5-15% range, sparing us the 35-year stagnation. Personally I think that’s a lot more likely. In any case, I’m just presenting you with the facts. You decide how you want to interpret them.

Sources:
(1946-1992 Home Prices: Seattle Real Estate Research Report)
(1993-2007 Home Prices: NWMLS)
(Misc. Price Data: Seattle Times)
(Inflation Data: Bureau of Labor StatisticsConsumer Price Index)

→ 58 CommentsCategories: Statistics
Tags: , , , , , ,

Case-Shiller: Prices Flat in Seattle

By The Tim on March 27th, 2007 at 9:26 AM · 94 Comments

Uh-oh…

Home prices go negative for first time in 11 years
Case-Shiller price index shows prices falling in 17 of 20 cities in January

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — U.S. home prices continued to fall in January, with prices in 10 major cities now down 0.7% year-over-year, according to Standard & Poor’s and MacroMarkets LLC, which released the January Case-Shiller price indexes on Tuesday.

The 10-city index is down 0.7% in the past year, the first year-over-year negative reading since 1996. The 20-city index is down 0.2% year-over-year. A year ago, prices were rising 15%.

“The annual declines in the composites are a good indicator of the dire state of the U.S. residential real estate market,” said Robert J. Shiller, chief economist at MacroMarkets, in a statement.

Of course, since you already know how special Seattle is, you obviously know it was one of the three cities in which prices are not presently falling. But the picture isn’t quite as rosy as you might think…

Home prices fell from December to January in 17 of the 20 cities; only Miami showed any price gains. Prices were flat in Charlotte, N.C., and Seattle. Prices were falling fastest in January in San Diego, down 1.7%, or a 22.4% annual rate. Prices dropped 1.1% in Los Angeles, or a 14% annual rate.

The 10-city index was down 0.8% in January, or an annual rate of 10%. The 20-city index was down 0.7% in January, or an 8.7% annual rate.

Eleven of the 20 cities had negative price appreciation in the past year, led by Detroit (down 6.9%) and Boston (down 5.6%). The biggest increases were in Seattle (up 11.1%) and Portland, Ore. (up 8.7%).

Prices have now retreated year-over-year in some of the regions that had the biggest price gains in 2004 and 2005. Phoenix is down 0.7% year-over-year. San Francisco is down 1.4%. Washington is down 3.9%.

I am reminded of an image that was circulating a while back. It was a photograph of a roller coaster just as the cars crested the peak and began the ride down. The various cars were labeled as different cities around the country, with San Diego in front (beginning to head down quickly), Phoenix in the middle (just starting a downward trend), and Seattle in the back (just “leveling off”).

To me, it only makes sense that the cities that began the ridiculous run-up first (San Diego, Phoenix, etc.) will be the first to head down. Conversely, cities that were late to the wild appreciation party (Seattle, Portland, etc.) will be the last to experience price declines. But why bother with “logic” and “reason” when you can put your blind faith in the mystic power of “job growth” and undefined “fundamentals.” 11.1% forever!

(Rex Nutting, MarketWatch, 03.27.2007)

→ 94 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized
Tags: ,