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.
$ h( B% W0 U- X% s  N& e
  D# F5 @2 t' A7 zNot 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.

: ]' b! V7 J6 F+ ~4 ALeamer 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.

8 L$ y/ c. R( y2 W1 ]/ sTo 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:

" k0 v$ c; [! V  ]: @' u
& j# g: v- p6 jIn Boston, the residential real estate market’s P/E recently topped 30 -- compared with just under 20 in 1988.

San Francisco’s previous peak of 25.6 in 1989 has been eclipsed, with the P/E currently at just over 27.
: x$ {- B) _6 r, `4 VSan 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.

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

* z8 }& C6 n% r- Y* HIf home prices are rising while average rents are falling -- which is the situation in San Francisco -- the bubble is pretty much unmistakable.

& ^- L, A+ B$ U4 Y6 H Home P/E ratios for 9 metro areas
7 b% O7 c* \5 v Avg. 1988-2000 2001
Boston  20.5 30.2
San Diego  22.8 29.7
( b: x& s, G, j7 q) h6 J% j7 [% TSan Francisco  23.8 27.2
Los Angeles  21.3 25.6
% l. u% d; N1 n/ M' h/ P; VSeattle  20.4 25
Denver  17.7 23.7
5 C" m" u8 O1 j- K2 h+ INew York  21.2 22.5
0 \9 H* f, ?' |0 h! _Chicago  17.2 20.8
# Y0 u) ?; t& F& K( k( _6 vWashington, D.C.  17.1 20.4
& G$ |3 h2 x. d# ?3 h
. `* g  O$ l# m9 j+ r6 E4 l4 }

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.

it would be a good reference.
' L' M7 _! A8 a# v( @) }
+ f5 K( @3 N. E! y# v3 d4 _& [2 [& ethanks

醉酒当歌

20% buble at least. And it can take 3-5 years to digest the bubble if not burst.
, n3 m' J+ t8 a$ z, e5 i3 R
[ 本帖最后由 醉酒当歌 于 2007-1-14 16:41 编辑 ]