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.

5 ^: E9 e1 {. m) h- x/ {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.
# `% u; g* x3 ?. k: j/ A# a* @
4 ~& L- b! k9 ?  G% y( P  P6 \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 s! O0 l# |0 ?, H8 N) n. r
In Boston, the residential real estate market’s P/E recently topped 30 -- compared with just under 20 in 1988.
" r) i# {" x, v
San Francisco’s previous peak of 25.6 in 1989 has been eclipsed, with the P/E currently at just over 27.
San Diego’s current P/E is nearly 30, compared with a 1989 high of 23.4.
New 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.
' P* z, Y$ Q) Z3 K) t& A
If home prices are rising much faster than rents, as is true in Los Angeles, that’s a strong indication a bubble is forming.
" K0 k" M; P! j/ X- m# S; A; a) c
If home prices are rising while average rents are falling -- which is the situation in San Francisco -- the bubble is pretty much unmistakable.
9 w1 \; ?7 s$ s$ \* t: x
3 ?8 J+ l% r* k1 p' Q2 z Home P/E ratios for 9 metro areas
, ^' ^1 u% B+ H* p Avg. 1988-2000 2001
* a  q7 Q2 p( A( ]5 qBoston  20.5 30.2
San Diego  22.8 29.7
San Francisco  23.8 27.2
Los Angeles  21.3 25.6
Seattle  20.4 25
) d5 ]4 |/ W. b5 KDenver  17.7 23.7
; Z, z6 `; D8 `3 A# dNew York  21.2 22.5
) c8 E5 m! S) Y0 BChicago  17.2 20.8
: I9 g; S; w5 c# G' L9 p; RWashington, D.C.  17.1 20.4
7 V* n3 z5 D' p+ u0 O3 G) O4 |
, `& g" j6 [9 l, O

It'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.


From: 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.
; [; m" p" \; [! ^1 n8 x5 Z+ n
8 J! C* ]4 Q+ Wit would be a good reference.
7 F5 x6 c- }( i
" e* G0 E6 A+ b+ T# ^8 j6 tthanks

醉酒当歌

20% buble at least. And it can take 3-5 years to digest the bubble if not burst.
" s" o, O; M& v6 T/ i/ T
/ f% K: u' \4 S[ 本帖最后由 醉酒当歌 于 2007-1-14 16:41 编辑 ]