Is there a house bubble in Edmonton?

smalltown

How to figure a home's fundamental value
) t0 T; g4 L7 ?4 ]0 P, S9 xLeamer 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 \7 S# g1 X9 h- u" |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.
; x" q2 F' _" @, k
Leamer 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.
/ F; O2 _3 v$ d! B5 S# D) Q
& X/ V) b, R& I8 k, zTo 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:


3 b" c' ]+ {  v% WIn 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.
: M2 j) Z9 s4 o6 P5 k0 DSan Diego’s current P/E is nearly 30, compared with a 1989 high of 23.4.
( C' j, h8 [4 G  z1 ~9 ZNew 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.

7 s2 `$ d& [5 o0 r" m) ^- g8 yIf home prices are rising much faster than rents, as is true in Los Angeles, that’s a strong indication a bubble is forming.
; J1 `; v. K1 |: v
If home prices are rising while average rents are falling -- which is the situation in San Francisco -- the bubble is pretty much unmistakable.
: e- u8 ^" G6 p# j
Home P/E ratios for 9 metro areas
Avg. 1988-2000 2001
Boston  20.5 30.2
San Diego  22.8 29.7
- D( Z/ K: g- ~2 z8 y5 Y$ YSan Francisco  23.8 27.2
Los Angeles  21.3 25.6
% d! b1 Z8 i1 ~. |Seattle  20.4 25
Denver  17.7 23.7
0 L- u6 |0 H3 C0 B; N2 H, ENew York  21.2 22.5
, }- N) d* C4 mChicago  17.2 20.8
Washington, D.C.  17.1 20.4

  s/ O6 t( I9 ^5 |) Z9 }$ ~

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.
- w1 _6 o, W! O7 ]4 |/ F
5 ?* o  w0 s/ j
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.
! v! `9 `* }3 u6 u
7 g/ I3 U' A7 u8 uit would be a good reference.

thanks

醉酒当歌

20% buble at least. And it can take 3-5 years to digest the bubble if not burst.
& O$ g! o. B5 ]- ~  s8 Z; r
[ 本帖最后由 醉酒当歌 于 2007-1-14 16:41 编辑 ]