Housing Bubble: Reading Between the For-Sale Signs
Published on - September 1st, 2006 (by J.D. Roth) Yesterday Jason Kottke linked to a graph of American home values from 1890 to present. It’s shocking. It’s one thing to hear that the U.S. is in the midst of a housing bubble, but it’s another thing to see a visual representation. Adjusted for inflation, homes are currently selling for about twice their historical value.
This graph is from a recent New York Times article entitled “Read Between All Those For Sale Signs” [reg. required] by David Leonhardt and Vikas Bajaj. The authors write:
Jumps of this magnitude have little precedent. To afford homes, some buyers, especially in California, have resorted to aggressive mortgages, like those that allow artificially low payments in the early years. In effect, families seem to be buying houses they cannot afford, in the hope that their incomes or property values will rise significantly.
This scares me. This is gambling. And in the short term at least, it seems likely that home values will fall. If they fall, who can say how long it take for them to regain their value? But I believe that few people blindly purchase a new house. It’s the largest financial decision most of us will ever make; I believe most people consider their situation carefully before making a purchase. The article offers further consolation.
[T]he boom in house prices was largely a result of the appeal of “superstar cities” like New York and San Francisco that are unlikely to lose their allure. In much of the rest of the country, prices are not unusually high, considering the relatively low interest rates.
The bubble seems to be bursting here in Portland. Though prices rose in the first half of 2006, I’ve begun to notice signs of a slow-down. More homes are for sale, and they’re on the market longer. There are more “price reduced” signs. Prices are certainly still high, and I doubt they’re actually dropping yet in Oregon, but the period of rapid appreciation seems to be over.

I’ll admit to being a little nervous about home prices. We bought our first home for $112,000 in 1994. We sold it for $160,000 in 2004 and bought this house, a hundred-year-old farmhouse for which we paid $282,000. We don’t intend to move anytime soon (or ever, actually), so in theory a volatile real estate market will have no effect on our personal finances. But it still makes me nervous.
There’s some comfort in the fact that other graphs of the bubble are not quite so alarming.
Ultimately, homebuyers should be guided by sound financial principles:
- Determine whether it makes more sense to rent or to buy.
- Don’t buy more home than you can afford.
- Seek professional advice, if possible
- Get a home inspection. This is one of the best $400 you’ll ever spend.
- If you use a real-estate agent, make sure she is working for you and not for the seller.
- Choose a sensible mortgage. (Please don’t go for one of those fifty-year monstrosities.)
Even the experts can’t agree on what’s going to happen. There are too many factors involved, not the least of which is the psychology of the American homebuyer.
For more on this subject, check out The Housing Bubble Blog.
[New York Times: "Read Between All Those For Sale Signs" — registration required]
GRS is committed to helping our readers save and achieve your financial goals.Savings interest rates may be low, but that’s all the more reason to shop for the best rate.Find the highest savings interest rate from Ally Bank, Capital One 360, Everbank, and more.
This article is about House and Home, News
Disclaimer: This content is not provided or commissioned by American Express. Opinions expressed here are author's alone, not those of American Express, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by American Express. This site may be compensated through American Express Affiliate Program.
Discover is a paid advertiser of this site. Reasonable efforts are made to maintain accurate information. See the Discover online credit card application for full terms and conditions on offers and rewards.
SEARCH FOR RECENT ARTICLES



![Headed for a fall? [Home prices have risen more sharply in the past ten years than at any other time since 1890.]](http://www.getrichslowly.org/images/homepricesS.jpg)
This topic happens to be of particular interest to me. So much so, in fact, that I started a blog about the housing bubble specific to the Seattle area. What really irks me is that not only are houses ridiculously expensive, but the majority of people (especially in Seattle) outright dismiss the notion that we are in a bubble, even today.
You’re right, no one knows what will happen, but with the insane amount of money that has been so lightly thrown around, and the very large number of people diving head-first into risky loans, I can’t help but think that it’s going to end poorly.
BTW, nice house. As long as you’ve got fixed payments that you can afford, and a decent reserve fund in case of job loss, etc. (which, considering the nature of this blog, I would assume you do), I’m sure you’ll be able to ride out whatever storm is brought on by the housing bubble.
loading....
I hate to say it, but we all pretty much saw this coming, perhaps more so in some markets than others. We have entered an age of throwing logic out the window at times and thus entering the trap of such items of interest-only loans and overextended credit. Wow, this is a huge matter for many people.
P.S. On my tax site, I did a real estate blog series and did a post on interest only loans if interested, here are the links:
http://www.brianbrowncpa.com/blog/?p=31
http://www.brianbrowncpa.com/blog/?p=18
loading....
I would be interested in knowing how they determined a “standard house”. A lot of the houses built today are quite a bit larger than those build several decades ago. I would like to see a similar per-square-foot analysis of the housing proce trend.
That said, I agree that the popularity of riskier mortgages, like the interest-only loans, is a sign of trouble. I’m guessing that as interest rates rise and balloon notes come due, we will see a rash of “motivated sellers” in the near future.
I also agree on J.D.’s house. It’s very nice..
loading....
Matt Smith is right: it’s not clear what a “standard house” is, with a 1900 one compared to a 2000 one.
Even if we assume equivalent square footage, there will be quality changes. Indoor plumbing? Modern kitchens (compared to 1900-tech stoves and ice boxes)? Heating systems that don’t flood the house with soot? Electric lighting? And so on.
Granted, it’s unlikely these quality changes all happened after 1997 or thereabouts, but it’s not clear if we’re comparing apples to apples.
loading....
Wow, you pretty much own my dream house.
loading....
As I sit here preening (super low fixed rate on a standard 30 year mortgage) I’m wondering – how can I leverage this situation to my own benefit? I don’t wish my fellow citizen ill, but I am curious what kind of opportunities this will create.
“I’m guessing that as interest rates rise and balloon notes come due, we will see a rash of “motivated sellers” in the near future.”
Which means there my be some REI bargains out there in the future.
Anything else?
loading....
I don’t think it actually matters really what’s inside a standard house. It’s shelter, and it’s semi-state-of-the-art, just like the houses of 100 years ago were. I’m sure the ice-box was as expensive a consideration as a refrigerator is today.
There’s a lot of fripperies in houses these days, for sure, but that’s just like an options list on a car. You can’t legitimately complain about cars costing a ton if you check every option box, and I feel the same is true about insisting (as an example) that a house has to be 2900 sq. ft. to be livable or has to have expensive german appliances.
How many people can really afford a $750K+ house? Are there really THAT many families whose household income is $200K+?
loading....
I really wish that more homebuilders would build smaller homes, say 1200-1600 square feet, not just for the cost savings but because I wouldn’t want to heat/cool/clean a house twice that size. Maybe the growing number of single home buyers will help that out–there’s always older houses, but maintenance is daunting.
That house in Portland is freaking gorgeous.
loading....
This article was front page news yesterday. “Affordable living” in Seattle. 296sf condos starting at $140,000.
JD, is there a chart correlating income to housing prices? It’d be interesting to compare how housing prices as a percentage of income have changed.
loading....
I don’t believe in the bubble. There are economic cycles. We were in a RE market that flooded with speculators. Now it is correcting. I run with a crew of real estate investors (the real ones) who make their living watching and knowing RE markets. This is the time they are stepping in to buy. Buy right, with enough down and enough to hold.
loading....
There’s an interesting James K. Glassman column from 2005 that takes an interesting look at the true nature of the “housing bubble”:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=4243
loading....
[...] (via Get Rich Slowly) [...]
loading....
The reason the other graph seems less alarming is because it is based on a deceptive logarithmic scale. If it were linear like the first graph, it would be much more alarming.
loading....
We all have “telling anecdotes” of home prices and inventories going up or down. It is right to say that “telling anecdotes” do not constitute proof. Having said that, the fact is this is a classic financial bubble, not supported by the fundamentals and it *will* end badly for many, many people. Please make sure you are not one of them.
loading....
Left behind
…
Its official! House prices rose in the UK by a whopping 9.9% in 2006. That is pretty incredible, most parts of the world seem to be going through a sustained rise in property prices. But what does this mean for the average first time buyer such as mys…
loading....
[...] Last summer I shared a graph of American home values from 1890 to present. I found it [...]
loading....
This isn’t exactly on topic but did anyone else notice that x-axis on the “alarming” graph isn’t zero based? The way the scale of the graph is setup exaggerates the situation. That is not to say that the graph is inaccurrate or that there is nothing to be concerned about. But wouldn’t a graph with the x-axis starting at zero be alarming enough?
The graph was printed in the NY Times but it comes from a book, “Irrational Exuberance”. I guess the author of the book created the graph in this way for maximum impact because “you have to scare people if you want to sell books (or newspapers)”
It strikes me as dishonest.
So in addition to worrying about what the housing bubble will mean for my finances I have to worry about how much unnecessary fear I’m developing from reading books and following the news
loading....
The graph is to scale. 100=0.
If the graph went to zero then you would be saying a $100,000 home could be purchased for zero dollars.
loading....
simeonism microsoma ragamuffinism exsufflation kumyk sublid isotopic shelleater
Trizonna
http://www.masonbruce.com/
loading....