From The Economist (March 3)
America's housing bubble continues to inflate. Although the rate of increase slowed in the fourth quarter, prices were still up by 11.2% over the year. In California and Washington, DC, housing prices rose by more than 20%. Alan Greenspan, the Fed's chairman, recently admitted in congressional testimony that there may be property bubbles in ??certain areas? and a risk that prices could decline. There is certainly evidence that prices are being driven by speculative demand: a new study by the National Association of Realtors shows that one-quarter of all houses bought in 2004 were for investment, not owner-occupation.
Punishing prices, puny yields
The main reason why housing markets have cooled in Australia and Britain is that first-time buyers have been priced out and demand from buy-to-let investors has slumped. While house prices have soared, rents have risen modestly or even fallen in some cities. In America, Britain, Spain New Zealand and Australia, average net rental yields (allowing for management fees, maintenance and empty periods) have fallen to 3.5% or less, well below mortgage rates. Shane Oliver, the chief economist at AMP Capital Investors, estimates that net rental yields on houses in Sydney are only 1%. Landlords are nowhere near covering their true costs, but many still hope to make their profit from capital gains. That sounds ominously similar to the days of the dotcom bubble, when it was argued that the link between share prices and profits no longer mattered.
According to calculations by The Economist (with the help of Julian Callow of Barclays Capital), house prices are at record levels in relation to rents (ie, yields are at record lows) in America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium. America's ratio of prices to rents is 32% above its average level during 1975-2000. By the same gauge, property is ??overvalued? by 60% or more in Britain, Australia and Spain, and by 46% in France (see chart).
The ratio of prices to rents is a sort of price/earnings ratio for the housing market. Just as the price of a share should equal the discounted present value of future dividends, so the price of a house should reflect the future benefits of ownership, either as rental income for an investor or the rent saved by an owner-occupier. To bring the ratio of prices to rents back to equilibrium, either rents must rise sharply or prices must fall. Yet central banks cannot allow rents to surge as this would feed into inflation. Rents directly or indirectly account for 29% of America's consumer-price index, so rising inflation would force the Fed to raise interest rates more swiftly, which could trigger a fall in house prices. Alternatively, if rents continue to rise at their current annual pace of 2.5%, house prices would need to remain flat for over ten years to bring America's ratio of house prices to rents back to its long-term norm. There is a clear risk prices might fall.
Lower real interest rates might justify a higher p/e ratio. For example, real interest rates in Ireland and Spain were reduced significantly when these countries joined Europe's single currency??though not by enough to explain the whole rise in house prices. In Britain, where tax relief on interest payments has been scrapped, real after-tax rates are close to their average over the past 30 years, and so do not justify a higher price/rent ratio. In America, too, real post-tax interest rates are not historically low, in part because mortgage-interest tax relief is worth less at lower rates of inflation. For instance, if interest rates are 10%, tax relief is 30% and inflation is 7%, the real after-tax interest rate is 0%. If interest rates are 6% and inflation is 3% (ie, the same gap as before), and tax rates stays the same, the real interest rate is 1.2%.
The unusual divergence between house prices and rents does not just affect investors; it also undermines the conventional wisdom that it is always better to buy a house, because ??rent is money down the drain?. Today in many countries it is much cheaper to rent than to buy.
Rent asunder
Take a two-bedroom flat in London, which you could buy for £450,000 ($865,000). To rent the same flat would currently cost £1,700 a month. In addition to a 6% mortgage rate, a buyer would face annual maintenance and insurance costs of, say, 1.25%. In the first year, the rent of £20,400 compares with total mortgage interest and maintenance payments of £33,000, a saving of £12,600. Interest payments would be less if a large deposit were paid, but in that case the income lost from not investing that money elsewhere has to be taken into account.
Assume that rents rise by 3% a year, in line with wages, while house prices from now on rise in line with inflation of 2%. At the end of seven years (the average time before the typical homeowner moves), you would be almost £35,000 better off renting, taking account of the capital appreciation and buying and selling costs. In other words, even without a fall in real house prices??which many believe to be likely??buying a house in Britain today seems a poor investment.
The figures look even more striking in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it is possible to rent an $800,000 house for $2,000 a month. Making the same assumptions about rents and house prices, but also deducting tax relief on a fixed-rate mortgage and adding property taxes, a buyer would pay $120,000 more over seven years than if he had rented. House prices in San Francisco would need to rise by at least 4% a year (2% in real terms) for it to prove cheaper to buy a house. Since 1950 American house prices in real terms have risen by an annual average of just over 1%. To expect them to rise faster from their current dizzy heights smacks of irrational exuberance, to say the least.
