For more than a decade now, real per capita housing expenditures are flat. And, you won't believe this crazy coincidence, but rent inflation just happened to go through the roof at the same time!
Wacky!
2/
Keep in mind that with a decade of basement level mortgage rates, it is doubtful that buyers have been cutting back, so the story is probably worse for renters.
3/
That difference doesn't show up in the aggregate data though, likely because there has been a compositional shift of formerly owned homes to rentals.
Here's an estimate of real expenditures/household for rental and owned. Both are basically flat since 2007.
4/
Today, I'd like to look at the recent mortgage rate spike. The average out-of-pocket cost for a new home is well above any recent comparisons, and it doesn't help much to use real numbers instead of nominal.
5/
Back to rents, the marginal price for higher rents is much higher than the baseline cost.
You could think of US housing as shelter, with a steady price/rent ratio of about 13x and land, with p/r ranging from 15-40x depending on conditions (see thread).
As you can see here, that appears to be the case cross-sectionally also.
So, when rents rise, price/rent ratios also rise. That appears to be the case over time, cross-sectionally within metros, and cross sectionally across metros.
Additional rent is land rent & it costs more. 7/
So, let's look at the median price/rent from 2014 to 2022, cross-sectionally across metros (data from Zillow. All hail Zillow!).
8/
Here, I show the average, the p/r in a metro with $1,250 median rent (in real 2022 $), p/r in a metro with $2,500 median rent, and the marginal increase in price for each $ increase in rent between metros (the regression line from above).
9/
The price/rent in a baseline, stable real rent metro has steadily declined since 2014. The marginal $ for an extra $ of rent has steadily increased (to a level not uncommon during previous expansion times). So, the price to get into a metro with higher rents has increased...
10/
And, the price to get into the average metro has also steadily increased, but that is purely because rents have risen in the average metro, so its price/rent reflects more land rents.
11/
If we break out mortgage/rent ratios similarly, the mortgage/rent ratio in the benchmark metro had been gradually declining with low covid-era rates. The recent rate spike has basically brought price affordability back to 2014-2019 norms.
12/
The rate spike has pushed mortgage payments higher in the expensive metros than they have been since at least 2014, and also in the average metro. But the reason the mortgage payment in average metros is so high is because the average metro is more of a high rent metro now.
13/
What does this mean? It's just another way of me saying I don't think prices are particularly at risk of much of a drop.
The rents and prices in the most expensive metros are mainly moderated by the rate of outmigration - how quickly is it getting too painful to stay?
14/
Let's say that higher rates push the mortgage payments in the most expensive cities high enough to lower demand for housing. Unless it gets extreme, that will just reduce the number of outmigrants from a few hundred thousand families in the worst metros to something lower.
15/
Inertia is working in favor of price stability. The first shoe to drop will simply be less displacement from the "superstar" cities.
IOW, the drop in demand in the most expensive cities that might be induced by higher mortgage rates has a natural countervailing force.
16/
At the other end of the spectrum, cities that haven't had unusual rent inflation don't have a mortgage affordability problem.
And, the only way to solve the rent problem at the heart of higher prices is to build, build, build.
17/17
Happy Fathers Day!
Ps. Just to be clear, I don’t know if there are any cities where the median mortgage/rent is no higher than it has been since 2014, but to the extent that it’s higher, it’s because rents in that city are higher!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here's an updated version of home price appreciation by ZIP code since 2000, with some annotations to highlight certain points in time.
6 month home price appreciation, motion chart via @YouTube
The most recent 5 years have a lot of differences from earlier years. Among them: (1) previously expensive places were becoming even more expensive. Now it’s more broad based. (2) not as much idiosyncratic change in individual metro areas as there was before.
Im probably a broken record on this, but if loose credit drives housing bubbles on the extensive margin, it’s odd that pre-2008 price appreciation was mostly in the places that were already the expensive but today when lending is almost all to 760+ credit scores, it’s less so.
Continuing to reference the Eurodollar yield curve. Here showing the January 2019 curve as a reference point. That's what it looked like before the Fed previously had to engage in lower rates to avoid recession. I consider that the benchmark for current yield inversion.
1/
In February, the curve looked recessionary. The bump up in inflation has led the Fed to raise rates, which have retracted a bit since the meeting. But, the return of the neutral, slightly upward slope remains. That's good news, relative to February.
2/
The rate hikes have newly anchored inflation expectations at their long-term norms. So far, I feel like the Fed is arguably still relatively neutral, considering the host of challenges they face.
So, major cities literally have committees that rule against new housing so that it can't even meet natural growth levels. In the face of this, private lenders and homebuilders managed to fund and build enough homes across the country to house everyone anyway.
1/
This entailed moving millions of people out of the cities where new homes were illegal and in to cities hundreds or thousands of miles away.
People resist those kinds of moves, so, unfortunately, rising rents in the illegal cities had to rise high enough to be painful.
2/
Yet, the builders were so effective that, for the country as a whole, rent inflation briefly, for a single month, in September 2005, declined to a level just below general core inflation, for the first time in a decade. fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=QHyy
3/
I think housing is a good example of how discourse is muddied by the difference between natural, pre-capitalist human intuitions and market economic intuitions.
Economic intuition mostly boils down to: monopoly is bad. Freedom of entry is good & change is acceptable.
1/
Natural intuition is more complex:
Consumer surplus is sacred. Producer surplus is vulgar.
That generally sits ok with economic intuition.
But:
Labor portion of producer surplus is sacred and capital portion is vulgar.
This is still not far, but sows the seeds for bloat.
2/
Domestic production is sacred and market production is vulgar.
Now we're really getting into some crosswinds.
And, probably most vexing:
Endowment effects are sacred and change is vulgar.
3/
Housing is like most things. When people are better off, they prefer a little more of it. So homes/person tends to increase when things are going well (inverted in the graph as persons per home, which declines in good times). 1/
Cyclical shifts in housing demand can actually affect housing more than basic population growth. For much of the post-WW II period, at least as much new construction was for increased demand for housing per capita as for population growth.
2/
For some time now, NYC, LA, San Fran., and Boston haven’t really even allowed enough building for population growth, let alone rising demand/capita.
So, when times are bad, and demand per capita is sluggish, their populations can grow sluggishly.
3/