Is there a house bubble in Edmonton?

smalltown

How to figure a home's fundamental value
Leamer says he can tell because homes, just like stocks, have a price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) that he believes determines their fundamental value. The “earnings” part of the ratio consists of the annual rent the house could command. Homebuyers can compare current P/Es with historical levels, Leamer says, to get some idea of whether houses in their cities are becoming overvalued.

Not everyone buys the idea that P/Es dictate value. But investors who completely ignore P/Es do so at their peril, as many have learned in recent years. Leamer, who heads the prestigious Anderson Forecast at the University of California in Los Angeles, points out that the P/E for the Standard & Poor’s 500, a key stock benchmark, was nearly double its previous historical high when the stock market bubble burst in 2000. When home P/Es peaked in California, Boston, Dallas and other markets in the mid-1980s, devastating real estate recessions followed.

Leamer didn’t invent the concept of P/Es for homes. But his willingness to proclaim bubbles in several of the nation’s hottest markets has brought him lots of attention recently.

To calculate P/Es for entire cities, Leamer divided the median home price in each by the annual rent for a two-bedroom unit in each city -- and looked at P/Es each year since 1988. Here’s what he found:
6 U/ k; G1 F5 g: t/ f  r7 y

In Boston, the residential real estate market’s P/E recently topped 30 -- compared with just under 20 in 1988.
7 p# Y( F9 G& u7 R2 E% Y, A
% ]+ r& Q  R+ p) ~San Francisco’s previous peak of 25.6 in 1989 has been eclipsed, with the P/E currently at just over 27.
- w$ {, L" @2 A: u6 r+ \8 U$ TSan Diego’s current P/E is nearly 30, compared with a 1989 high of 23.4.
0 F, [% u% f2 ^8 g1 U7 QNew York, by contrast, is actually well below previous peaks. The area’s current 22.5 P/E is above its recent nadir of 17.6 in 1993, but down from 28.6 in 1988.
You don’t have to know exact P/Es, however, to spot signs of trouble, Leamer says. Any time there’s a disconnect between prices and the underlying value of homes, as measured by their market rents, there’s the potential for a bubble.

If home prices are rising much faster than rents, as is true in Los Angeles, that’s a strong indication a bubble is forming.

If home prices are rising while average rents are falling -- which is the situation in San Francisco -- the bubble is pretty much unmistakable.

Home P/E ratios for 9 metro areas
Avg. 1988-2000 2001
, A4 N; y8 U  y) v( g. j! mBoston  20.5 30.2
9 K  J* L9 z% i/ g. X# i# u# r/ PSan Diego  22.8 29.7
San Francisco  23.8 27.2
Los Angeles  21.3 25.6
5 l1 P0 [. X+ Y( f( |Seattle  20.4 25
, j  P# X" \5 J; c1 w- _3 w3 ?  ?Denver  17.7 23.7
New York  21.2 22.5
Chicago  17.2 20.8
Washington, D.C.  17.1 20.4
9 b0 \" p8 v, i7 j+ j5 C
6 ]4 c4 S* {& ?6 e; e: K

& x' a1 ^& ]5 E$ i" O) H' k" t! d6 BIt's difficult to compare P/Es from one city with those from another. P/Es in Atlantic City, N.J., have wavered between 17.3 and 11.6 since 1988; in San Diego, P/Es have not dropped below 20. But you can look on the P/E as a measure of risk -- that is, the higher the P/E is above its average level, the greater the risk, no matter where you live.
; w# |1 s( R6 C! e8 r9 O2 w
2 a. v3 ]9 s1 W$ ~
! q1 V5 Y8 ~/ g& R8 k' b* S: F! UFrom: http://moneycentral.msn.com/cont ... ingguide/P37631.asp

CANDYMAN

Who has the P/E for Edmonton for the last 20 years, please post it here.
. W/ \! g3 N/ Q& h
& E8 w% g" I* ^3 |* E9 `# l6 fit would be a good reference.
2 Y+ _+ ^* x$ b
thanks

醉酒当歌

20% buble at least. And it can take 3-5 years to digest the bubble if not burst.

[ 本帖最后由 醉酒当歌 于 2007-1-14 16:41 编辑 ]