Housing update: Case Shiller National Home Price Index hit 212 in October 2019, 51% above 140

The Case Shiller National Home Price Index hit 212 in October 2019, 51% above 140. The full data at the new iteration of the index since February 2018 is behind a registration wall. 

The 140 level was the level around which the index tracked for most of the post-war until the year 2000, in a range between 120 and 160.

Since then it's been as high as 235 in 2005 and 2006 during the housing bubble, and as low as 151 in February 2012 after the bubble sort-of popped. A real correction might have taken prices to 120 or even below.

Clearly the index never returned to the post-war experience, which was mostly slightly below 140. Keeping housing prices high became a Federal Reserve objective and bragging point after the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, achieved by manipulating interest rates lower.

The median sales price of an existing home in the US is currently $271,300 through November 2019, a price which is traditionally considered affordable to any individual making $104,346 per year and up.

Seeing that's just 8.5% of individual wage earners in 2018, the median sales price of an existing home is currently UNAFFORDABLE to 91.5% of wage earners.

Most people have to put together two incomes to afford such a house. But in a country where the median wage is south of $33,000 per year in 2018, two incomes only gets you to $66,000, which affordably buys you a house worth about $171,600 or so, $100,000 less than the current median sales price.

In my immediate vicinity, there's exactly two such single family homes on the market right now which are affordable to a couple making $66,000. Everything else costs much, much more.

This is a picture of declining equal opportunity.

Once again Rush Limbaugh is full of it about the late, great recession

Here's Rush on November 15th:

In the first place, this so-called recession, the worst since the Great Depression 2008, I don't care, folks, it wasn't! ... Democrats have lived off of this economic collapse narrative for eight years now, and it's horse hockey. The truth of it is that there hasn't been a recovery from it. ... Hell, the recession that Reagan inherited in 1980 dwarfs this one. I mean the thing that Reagan inherited when he became president in 1980, this doesn't even get close to touching it, how bad it was. ... This has really been a sore spot for me for all these eight years, is how supposedly bad that was and how Obama single-handedly rescued us from it, and it was all the Republicans' doing, and it all happened because of the Iraq war. ... We haven't replaced these jobs that were lost. They keep talking about the employment rate being way down, record lows, what a crock.

Rush doesn't remember the 1980s very well, when he was in his 30s. Without a college education and a long enough personal history to compare things to while experiencing the hard knocks of life trying to get his radio career going, those years understandably seemed worse to him than they really were. Honest people everywhere recognize it was that way for them, too. Unfortunately Rush still doesn't seem to be able to measure the 1980s properly let alone put them in their proper perspective economically.

Take first time claims for unemployment. Reagan's weekly average 1981-1988 was 406,000. Obama's  weekly average 2009-2016 (still unfinished) is 373,000, 8% less severe overall. But the averages around each recession peak are much closer in severity. First time claims 1981-1983 averaged 491,000 weekly, while claims 2009-2011 averaged 477,000 weekly, the latter only 2.85% less severe overall. Peak claims in 1982 averaged 30.1 million, in 2009 only 2% lower at 29.46 million.

While the Obama jobs recession was not quite as severe in terms of the persistence of high first time claims for unemployment, full-time jobs took forever to recover under Obama. Under Reagan they had bounced back almost immediately. In 1981 the pre-recession peak in full-time averaged 83.243 million. By 1984 that level had been recovered with 86.544 million full-time jobs on average. Three years, that's it. In 2007, by contrast, the pre-recession peak in full-time averaged 121.091 million, but it took EIGHT YEARS to recover that level. Full-time finally averaged 121.492 million in 2015. That's why it hasn't felt like things are looking up until this year, in 2016.

If you were an adult in the 1980s, you probably remember the Savings and Loan crisis from 1986-1995, but you probably don't think of the Reagan era as a period of widespread bank failures comparable with what we recently experienced in the Great Recession, and you would be right. Losses from such failures as estimated by the FDIC for the period 1981-1988 total $8.9 billion. But for the period 2009-2016 estimated losses from bank failures soared to $57.3 billion, 544% higher. Even adjusted for inflation the recent losses were well in excess of 200% higher than in the 1980s. 

Or take housing. The Case-Shiller Home Price Index fell at most about 14% from the late 1970s to the mid 1980s through the Reagan recessions. I remember my dad was pretty unhappy about it because he retired in 1980 and was sitting in a house he hoped to sell for more money one day, but the value kept declining. But that was nothing compared to what happened between 2006 and 2012 when the index tanked over 36%. The foreclosure rate averaged just 0.5% in 1980-81, but soared to 3.8% in 2008-09, an increase of over 600% in the rate. Many millions of people lost homes in the Great Recession, but they are nameless and faceless to Rush Limbaugh because to him things were much worse in the 1980s. But not in reality. I saw homes in foreclosure in my own middle class neighborhood in 2007 that I never saw back in 1980 in my dad's hometown.

Perhaps the best way to visualize how much worse the most recent recession was compared with the early 1980s is to examine quarterly current dollar GDP. You had one tiny blip in quarterly current dollar GDP between December 1981 and March 1982 when it declined all of $0.01 trillion, 0.3% that's it. The truth is GDP recovered the next quarter ending June 1982 and never looked back.

Fast forward to 2007-09. There were four quarterly declines: A decline of $0.02 trillion between 12/31/07 and 3/31/08; a decline of $0.29 trillion from 9/30/08 to 12/31/08; a decline of $0.17 trillion from 12/31/08 to 3/31/09; and a decline of $0.04 trillion from 3/31/09 to 6/30/09. The previous peak level in quarterly current dollar GDP wasn't recovered until a year later, in June 2010. It took almost two years, not one quarter as in 1982. All told GDP fell from peak to trough by $0.5 trillion or 3.37%. 

The recession of 1982 was child's play compared with 2007-2009. Rush just can't see it because he was already rich during the Great Recession.

Your guiding light in this time of tumult he is not.   

The Case Shiller Home Price Index Shows Housing Prices Almost 20% Above The Long Term Mean Level

The current level of the Case Shiller Home Price Index is 152.48 and the mean level is 127.51.

About 140 on the index looks like the historical high water mark beyond which housing appears to be in a bubble, meaning we are in one.

Given the scale of the recent extreme housing bubble, housing should not have been prevented from correcting fully, probably well below 120, in order to reset the market on a surer basis. That might have prevented the current escalation in prices, which are unaffordable to almost everyone beneath upper middle class income levels of around $76,000.

Recent tirades against income inequality forget that the bottom half of the population typically has most of what wealth it has tied up in housing and is not well diversified. Loss of homes and home equity have been major drivers of income inequality under Barack Obama, compounded by loss of employment and housing policy inattention, even as stock markets have been driven higher by nominally positive policy through Obama's Federal Reserve chairs.

Obama sent money, after all, to Aunt Zeituni's family to help with her funeral, but he did not attend, and went golfing instead.

Total Household Net Worth Rises About 3.5% In Real Terms Since April 2007 Through The Last Quarter Of 2013

I used all items CPI of about 13.17% from April 2007 to date, not seasonally adjusted, on April 2007 peak household net worth of $68.82486 trillion.

This yields $77.889 trillion to record date in Q4 2013, meaning the current dollar figure of $80.66 trillion of household net worth represents a real gain, that is an inflation adjusted gain, of about 3.5% in household net worth since April 2007, over six years ago. That's not really saying very much.

The Fed is cited here as saying the vast majority of the increase in household net worth is attributable to rising stock prices, which rose in value by a factor of 2.4 times the rise of housing values, owing to the nearly 30% rise in the stock market in 2013:

The Fed said household net worth rose 14 percent in the full year, driven by a $5.6 trillion rise in the value of shares and a $2.3 trillion increase in the value of real estate.

Using the Wilshire 5000, total stock market capitalization increased $5.65 trillion in nominal terms in 2013. But a mere 20% correction to today's market would wipe out over $4.8 trillion in an instant, and a 40% crash would annihilate over $9.5 trillion.

Housing prices overall have reached a valuation nearly 20% above the long term mean level, which means to some that we are in a reinflated housing bubble. The Case Shiller Home Price Index is up almost 10% just in the last year. The high end of normal on the index used to be 140. Today we are in excess of 150. So reversion to the mean could easily wipe out the $2.3 trillion increase from 2013, and then quite a bit more.

The real increase in net worth may be nothing more than a Fed induced mirage based on artifically cheap money and grotesquely punitive rates of return on same which encourage speculation in asset classes like stocks and real estate.

Wise men know what wicked things are written on the skies.

Home Prices Still Too High: Nationally 24% Pay More Than Half Their Income On Housing

Case Shiller Home Price Index @multpl.com

Joel Kotkin reflects on the still expensive housing market here:

Ownership levels continue to drop, most notably for minorities, particularly African Americans. Last year, according to the Harvard study, the number of renters in the U.S. rose by a million, accompanied by a net loss of 161,000 homeowners.

This is bad news not only for middle-income Americans but even more so for the poor and renters. The number of renters now paying upward of 50% of their income for housing has risen by 2.5 million since the recession and 6.7 million over the decade. Roughly one in four renters, notes Harvard, are now in this perilous situation. The number of poor renters is growing, but the supply of new affordable housing has dropped over the past year. ...

According to the Center for Housing Policy and National Housing Conference, 39% of working households in the Los Angeles metropolitan area spend more than half their income on housing, 35% in the San Francisco metro area and 31% in the New York area. All of these figures are much higher than the national rate of 24%, which itself is far from tolerable.

-------------------------------------------------

Kotkin nowhere mentions that currently expensive housing is explicit Federal Reserve policy. ZIRP and QE are specifically designed to reduce long term interest rates to make home mortgages affordable. Instead those policies have re-inflated housing prices to their historical highs before the bubble and reversed the downward trajectory of price resetting those prices were on.

In June 2013 dollars, the Case Shiller Home Price Index reached its low point after the bubble at 126.30 for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. That level hadn't been seen since June 1998. But from the long term perspective prices should have reset to 120 on the index or lower as they have in the past. This expectation holds even more considering the excesses of the bubble which needed to be wiped out, but haven't been.

The Fed has done nothing but interfere with the free market in housing, creating the bubble in the first place and preventing its deflation now. To fix the problem, the Fed needs at a minimum to focus solely on price stability by maintaining a strong dollar. Markets will take care of themselves after that.

For What The Nation Earns Homes Are Still Overpriced (15%)

So says Bloomberg Businessweek, here:

"[H]ouses are overvalued. From 1988 through 1999, median home values averaged 2.6 times the median annual income. As the bubble kicked into gear, prices pushed up to almost four times income. With the crash, that ratio has come down—but not far enough, largely because incomes have been stagnant, if not declining, in recent years. Home values are now at three times the median income—that’s 15 percent higher than they have historically been, relative to what Americans earn."

From the point of view of the Case Shiller Home Price Index, a 15% correction to the current index value of 136 would imply 115.

In the post-war period, we have witnessed 115 on the index in December 1982, March 1975, December 1973, September 1968, and December 1952.

Case Shiller Home Price Index In February 2013 Dollars Flirts With Historic Highs

The Case Shiller Home Price Index re-calculated for inflation in February 2013 dollars at 136.11 is today 11.6% elevated from the historic mean of 121.96 going back to . . . the 19th Century.

The 122 level on the index is a veritable polestar of housing prices for forty years from the 1950s until the recent housing bubble, with 140 representing the rare high water mark of prices in the 1980s . . . and the 1890s.

From a long term perspective prices today are elevated and represent a good time to sell. Prices are only low if you think the housing bubble is repeatable.

And it must not be forgotten that the data from the housing bubble itself contributes to elevated mean and median prices on the index, biasing them upward.

Latest Real Case Shiller Home Price Index Shows Prices Top Of Range Pre-Bubble

If you take out the obvious housing bubble, the graph shows how prices for housing today are at the upper range of historical experience when adjusted for inflation. These are prices in December 2012 dollars going back to 1890, over 120 years. It doesn't get more current than that. Housing assets are still expensive on this showing, about 12% too expensive, imho. Price discovery is being impeded by Federal Reserve zero interest rate policy. See the graph here.

Housing Values Gained Most Under Clinton, Lost Most Under Obama Since WWII

"I honor you. I do!"

The following shows the percentage gain or loss in the Case Shiller Home Price Index values December over December for the presidents since WWII, ranked best to worst.

The overall gain or loss is calculated from the December of the election year to the December of the year leaving office, which then is divided by either 4 years or 8 years to arrive at an annualized score. In the case of Obama performance is calculated over 3.5 years (through June 2012).

Factoring out the housing bubble which built under Clinton and collapsed under Bush/Obama would give best performance to Reagan and worst to Bush The Elder, but it is what it is. Slick Willie rides again!

Clinton                    +2.22 percent

Reagan                    +1.43 percent

Carter                      +1.28 percent

Truman                   +  .92 percent

Bush The Younger +  .87 percent

Eisenhower             +  .78 percent

Nixon/Ford             +  .05 percent

JFK/LBJ                  -  .57 percent

Bush The Elder      - 2.72 percent

Obama                    -3.69 percent

Case-Shiller Home Price Index Updated For 2012 At Multpl.com: Dead Cat Bounce

The Case-Shiller Home Price Index at multpl.com has been updated for Q1 and Q2 2012, showing the housing nadir at 124 in March 2012, from which as of the end of June the increase is 6.8 percent to 133.

See the chart and tables here.

I don't believe it is anything but a dead cat bounce, which may indeed go higher because of QE3, but it is not the sign of a fundamental change like the one which occurred in 1997, nor for that matter like the one in the immediate aftermath of WWII. Housing values remain in the high range of historical post-war experience and need to fall further.

Obama has had no commitment to fixing housing, playing around the edges of the issue, and Romney plans to do nothing but let the market fix it, which is probably the best thing to do, as long as he doesn't fiddle with current tax arrangements affecting housing.

The tax changes introduced in 1997 need to find their equilibrium without more interference. The federal government needs to firmly express its commitment to all current tax arrangements affecting housing, including the mortgage interest deduction, in order to calm the housing market and give homeowners, buyers, sellers and financiers the confidence to move forward on a solid basis.

Markets hate uncertainty about rules! 

The Nadir For Housing Prices Since The 1950s Came In 1974

The low point for housing values since the 1950s was reached in 1974 when the Case-Shiller Home Price Index bottomed out at 111.

That bottom could easily be plumbed again, and indeed overshot to the downside in view of the massive bubble on the upside topping out at 218 in 2005, which was completely contrary to historical experience. Housing values fluctuated for a long time around the 120 level, but there is no reason why a bottom should be anchored around that number given the huge oversupply today.

What's really preventing the market from clearing is the banking system. It holds the bad paper on all this oversupply, and to clear the banking system needs to clear. Which means bankruptcy.

And as we all know, bankruptcy is failure, and failure is no longer acceptable in America. Which is why your kids will get no Fs in the upcoming academic term, and why housing will be a Zombie indefinitely.

Housing Prices Need Not Increase, Just Remain Stable, For Economic Recovery

So says Harvard's Edward Glaeser for Bloomberg.com here:

The 1990s offer us one upbeat message. Housing prices stayed static for six long years after 1991, and in real terms, housing prices were no higher in 1998 than they were in 1991. Yet real GDP grew an impressive 28 percent between 1991 and 1998. It’s a myth that the housing market must recover before the larger economy can surge.

Not quite.

The average Case Shiller Home Price Index for 1991 was 125.55, and was 125.10 for 1998, but the chart for the period was flat to slightly declining, until the provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 helped begin the housing bubble. Prices reached a nadir for the period in 1996 at 117.64, a decline of over 5 percent from 1991.

Case Shiller Home Price Index Falls To 128.13 Through 12/31/11

And everyone's happy for some reason.

When you consider that the mean for the whole history of the index is 123 and the median 120, which include the irrational exuberance of recent history, today's new low of 128 after this massive, outlier, bubble merely looks like more progress in the direction of regression toward the mean, not a "bottom" as many are saying. Indeed, the historical mean implies we have a fair way DOWN to go in price, to say nothing of the very real possibility of overshooting that to the downside.

The quarterly index, adjusted for inflation, has now hit today's level eight times in the post-war period:

Dec. 31, 2011 128.13

Mar. 31, 1999 128.40

Dec. 31, 1990 128.27

Dec. 31, 1979 128.78

Sep. 30, 1978 128.22

Dec. 31, 1955 128.21

Mar. 31, 1955 128.15

Dec. 31, 1954 128.30.

There's enough history between 110 and 130 to suggest that "normal" is still somewhere south of 128.

Take two aspirin every morning and call me in ten years.

Go here for the chart.