As they do every year, Demographia
has released its 2014 version of its International
Housing Affordability Survey. As my long-time readers know, I
am particularly interested in this analysis of the housing markets of several
of the world's developed economies, largely because it measures affordability
in terms that we can understand.
Demographia rates housing
affordability using a concept that they call the "median multiple".
The median multiple is defined as the median house price in a given
market divided by the median household income in that market. Demographia
goes on to assess housing affordability based on a range of median multiples as
shown on this chart:
Historically, housing has been
considered to be affordable when the median multiple is 3.0 or less, that is,
the cost of a median house is three times the median household income in that
market or less. The most severely unaffordable markets have median
multiples in excess of 5.1 with gradations in between. Demographia
assesses the real estate markets in 360 metropolitan markets across Australia,
Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, the United Kingdom
and the United States and assesses a median multiple for each except in the
case of Japan where average multiple data is used (i.e. average price divided
by average household income).
As background, here is a chart
showing the housing affordability ratings for all markets in all nine nations:
You can see that the United States
has the lion's share of affordable housing markets with 84 out of 236 markets
or 35.6 percent of the total being affordable and 23 or 9.7 percent of the
total being severely unaffordable. In contrast, Australia, Japan, New
Zealand and the United Kingdom have no affordable housing markets and, in the
case of Australia, 25 out of 39 of its markets or 64.1 percent of the total are
considered severely unaffordable.
Now, let's get to the subject of
this posting, housing affordability in the United States. In this
posting, I will focus on how the U.S. housing market is divided; the 15 markets
that are the most affordable and the 15 markets that are the least affordable
when measured using the median multiple.
Let's start with a chart showing the
15 most affordable markets in the United States:
The majority of America's most
affordable real estate markets are found in the former industrial heartland,
many of them in Illinois, Michigan and Ohio. I've also included a column
showing the median multiple from the previous Demographia study with data from 2012.
You will notice that in 7 out of the 12 markets where Demographia had median
multiple data in 2013, the affordability has actually improved on a
year-over-year basis. When you look at the column showing the
year-over-year change in the median prices for the 12 markets with data for
both years, you'll notice that 7 of the most affordable markets saw median
price declines of between 2.3 percent and 20 percent on a year-over-year basis.
That is a rather significant drop in price given that the average value
of homes on a nationwide basis has shown substantial improvement.
Now, let's look at the chart showing
the 15 least affordable markets in the United States. In this case, you'll notice that all of
them fall well above the 5.1 multiple that defines markets that are severe
unaffordable:
Notice anything odd here? Of
the 15 least affordable markets in the United States, only 2 are not in
California! Last year, only 8 of the nation's 15 least affordable
markets were in California. If you look at the column showing the
year-over-year change in the median multiple, you'll notice that in every case
where there is data for both 2012 and 2013, there has been a substantial
decrease in affordability. As well, in all cases where there is data for
both years, the median price of a home has risen. If we look at just the price data for the markets in California, year-over-year price increases range from
18.7 percent to a whopping 60.6 percent!
Let's take a quick look at what has
happened to the median multiplier in Los Angeles since 2005:
Notice the rapid drop from 11.5 in
2007 to 5.7 in 2009. While Demographia would classify Los Angeles' real
estate as severely unaffordable at a multiple of 5.7, it was a great deal more
affordable than it was two years earlier. You'll also notice that the
median multiple is starting to rise again, hitting 7.7 in 2013, its highest
level since 2007. Real estate in Los Angeles is becoming increasingly
unaffordable for a median family yet again. The same can be said for
Santa Barbara, San Francisco - Oakland, Santa Cruz, San Jose, San Luis Obispo
and San Diego, all of which have seen substantial year-over-year decreases in
affordability in 2013 from levels that were already severely unaffordable in
2012.
It's quite interesting to look
beyond the national real estate data and see that, once again, it appears that
bubbles could be reforming in some markets, particularly in California whose
market is behaving far differently than the markets in the old industrial belt.
Perhaps some of the blame for reinflating the bubble can be laid at the
clay feet of the Federal Reserve and its zero interest rate policy, a policy
that is once again allowing home purchasers to buy way more home than they can
afford.
I have owned an apartment complex for many years and we are currently experiencing the largest number of vacancies we have ever had. Many houses in the area are empty or under leased. In 2005 and 2006 prior to the housing collapse many people were looking at second homes, for investments or as a vacation getaway, today not only have they shed the extra home many have doubled up with family or friends reducing the need for housing.
ReplyDeleteWe are pushing on a string and calling it demand when someone who can barely pay the rent is encouraged by the government to buy a house they can neither afford or maintain. We have a shortage of "qualified" buyers and renters. If full disclosure is required my properties are in Indiana where the economy is average and many of the wide price swings have not taken place. More below on how super low interest rates are negative to housing.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/12/super-low-interest-rates-disservive-to.html
I'm with you until you get to the point where you say it's the Fed's fault that people are buying more home than they can afford. If rates are low and people get 30-year loans at low rates, what's wrong with that? The Fed isn't qualifying people for loans, banks are. If the banks are loaning money to people who can't afford homes, that's the fault of the banks, not the Fed.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the unaffordability of homes in Honolulu is not worth remarking on. It's always been awful. Local families here complain that their kids have to move to the West Coast to find a place they can buy.
ReplyDeleteI think the cal state home property taxes, the banks, the r.e industry and all conspire to inflate cal home prices to increase tax revenues , increase home insurance premiums and cities charge all they want for water/sewer, trash, cable, phone, gas and electrcity, etc. So a lot of $$ is spent by the homeowner on top of the mortgage payment and interest rate. Someone should calculate the % of all the tack on costs involved in home buying. The money just pours through our fingers to somebody else. Do we break even after 20 -30 years after all the sunk money in home ownership??
ReplyDeleteCoastal California sales are largely driven up by foreign (Chinese and Indian) and out of state buyers who own the homes as "vacation" homes. They pay well over asking price, often with cash so no need to worry about appraisals. Once purchased, they only pay property taxes annually, while avoiding state income taxes. Newly minted tech millionaires are also driving the prices in the bay area, especially SF and the Silicon Valley.
ReplyDelete