Is there a house bubble in Edmonton?

smalltown

How to figure a home's fundamental value
/ G7 s+ l0 x5 i  E, q: E8 m8 `$ wLeamer 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.
$ T. E. \3 o; u' t" o& Z3 F
, C* V, E# L4 KNot 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.

% Y3 z3 |  `+ Z3 G; ~+ BLeamer 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:
/ g6 q7 q1 {5 T- o
) C0 x- ]0 Q( ^) A1 S& `1 P
In Boston, the residential real estate market’s P/E recently topped 30 -- compared with just under 20 in 1988.

" \/ A  C  L& g& u+ u( }6 _2 KSan Francisco’s previous peak of 25.6 in 1989 has been eclipsed, with the P/E currently at just over 27.
* W# p# y: ?& v  `! `# qSan 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.
9 u9 X0 j! }+ L: T* S# A, U
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
* I5 n" H( a8 c  U) r7 ^Boston  20.5 30.2
$ A% W# \" n/ s- `( v2 B& ZSan Diego  22.8 29.7
San Francisco  23.8 27.2
3 f8 C& y# w! O, _' y! ^' H! _Los Angeles  21.3 25.6
, l& D8 Z3 n2 [( p, O6 R; L0 ASeattle  20.4 25
Denver  17.7 23.7
New York  21.2 22.5
Chicago  17.2 20.8
1 m0 B. B2 {2 _/ JWashington, D.C.  17.1 20.4

& C9 v, u/ o1 {# x* u

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.
  M( I  W1 D  t1 N1 p) i
1 n2 X& N, {! C+ h2 q# Q: D: [. S
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.
; l% h+ ]+ a2 V( M# ?( A; h3 r
/ |/ v! B0 ], g0 K6 @; m; }, m1 zit would be a good reference.
' d0 b+ [5 q7 y" t: j
8 b' g8 L9 i9 p, Sthanks

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 ]