Is there a house bubble in Edmonton?

smalltown

How to figure a home's fundamental value
4 G, K/ ~, M1 J3 qLeamer 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.
0 W- J7 S" e/ [( X) p1 z9 m
$ \' k; N6 \( x0 o. A. R( q9 YLeamer 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:

/ p7 H5 {, [0 h% l  S
In 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.
6 ?$ H7 a  M6 u; t) H2 hSan 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.
( w+ e1 s9 Y7 x/ {4 x/ |0 ZYou 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.
6 s( |& t% f: q, g5 J1 g
If home prices are rising much faster than rents, as is true in Los Angeles, that’s a strong indication a bubble is forming.
: }: u, k+ I& O9 K1 u; O# j4 N
# n# F# o8 Q6 C/ t8 e  V0 iIf home prices are rising while average rents are falling -- which is the situation in San Francisco -- the bubble is pretty much unmistakable.

! }, D% Q% z7 e! |  X Home P/E ratios for 9 metro areas
Avg. 1988-2000 2001
Boston  20.5 30.2
0 ~  X9 S& y. S9 BSan Diego  22.8 29.7
' a% N9 J' N( a" L; XSan Francisco  23.8 27.2
Los Angeles  21.3 25.6
Seattle  20.4 25
+ t% k( u) W5 Q5 s7 t8 aDenver  17.7 23.7
New York  21.2 22.5
Chicago  17.2 20.8
# Z  j" u, _# ^) b6 `# a+ oWashington, D.C.  17.1 20.4

; Q1 e/ [' {+ k* }
7 n  i5 Z+ u  M+ T: j: l$ ~/ u1 G
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.


" D& y" j" h: G) j. xFrom: 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.
1 S' ?4 D; P) H2 Z- |. j
$ o/ L2 N: K( m) u/ Q; eit would be a good reference.
. y8 h6 K; |& G) t
9 m0 o9 h6 c/ \* s1 l5 Zthanks

醉酒当歌

20% buble at least. And it can take 3-5 years to digest the bubble if not burst.
# h1 ~. ~. s$ E7 U
- @5 K, ^$ D8 C: A; e[ 本帖最后由 醉酒当歌 于 2007-1-14 16:41 编辑 ]