Is there a house bubble in Edmonton?

smalltown

How to figure a home's fundamental value
; V9 C# Q1 f4 n2 T, f5 a5 [$ B4 vLeamer 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.
2 n5 c  x) x4 y* m0 `+ }' Y
% s/ M, f( J% y6 d" P1 }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.

6 ]1 c% V, Z% w6 h, B0 L$ HLeamer 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.

7 L0 X! ?# n* WTo 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:
5 e) R8 e$ x7 c5 ^
" V7 I( Q( `- I7 x
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.
, w$ h0 ~0 E+ C9 K7 _2 QSan Diego’s current P/E is nearly 30, compared with a 1989 high of 23.4.
% k2 ~0 M% ?) ~9 v& Z+ FNew 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.
* `4 O2 c6 U" N3 p3 m1 }, ~8 P( u
6 ]8 ^% Q/ N& l' q1 Z* }: GIf home prices are rising while average rents are falling -- which is the situation in San Francisco -- the bubble is pretty much unmistakable.
& t% S0 v4 {1 Z
Home P/E ratios for 9 metro areas
Avg. 1988-2000 2001
Boston  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
& ]3 j( O3 A) `* D5 @2 s& a& PDenver  17.7 23.7
9 K' d5 j1 j- F; U( P4 QNew York  21.2 22.5
Chicago  17.2 20.8
Washington, D.C.  17.1 20.4
$ H1 q7 c7 o9 [% r$ n

: U9 c. a4 E2 U: N' W
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.
% r* b, @! {+ ^( ^5 k* n& k! R
6 `+ H$ h; M- Q) ?; d! c+ P* f
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.
7 C1 r! }0 ]+ A# Z& t5 I% p
6 X/ v+ \* e& x% D9 ]- r& eit would be a good reference.
/ c  ^: p; m) p5 z' c+ g# Q# i
thanks

醉酒当歌

20% buble at least. And it can take 3-5 years to digest the bubble if not burst.
/ [* D: X2 A0 {( f
3 J/ A! V9 Z- @7 X5 o2 A: x[ 本帖最后由 醉酒当歌 于 2007-1-14 16:41 编辑 ]