Home Prices: Low, But Still No Bargain

购房者正在焦虑地关注住房市场持稳的任何迹象，同样关注的还有那些认为住房市场是经济问题关键的人。不过，最新公布的数据却显示形势愈加黯淡。受到密切关注的Case-Shiller住房价格指数追踪着美国20个大城市住房价格走势。该指数显示，截至1月份美国住房市场状况每况愈下，未见好转迹象。然而，即便在价格下跌之后，整体房价与工资相比仍然不便宜。随后我们会进一步讨论这点。整体房价表现已经相当低迷，1月份Case-Shiller房价指数较上年同期下滑了19%。而怀疑拖累房价的几个城市跌幅果然惨烈：凤凰城房价暴跌了35%，拉斯维加斯跌了32%，迈阿密跌了29%。房价下跌现象确实也在扩散。明尼阿波利斯房价跌了20%，芝加哥跌了16%。过去房价相当坚挺的旧金山房价如今表现也令人瞩目。该市房价过去一年下挫了32%，跌幅甚至比圣地亚哥和洛杉矶还高。根据Case-Shiller数据显示，单是过去3个月旧金山房价就下跌了11%。过去一年纽约房价下跌了10%，过去3个月下跌了4%；不过这种表现仍然好于平均水平。住房市场能否承受住华尔街危机和普遍裁员浪潮的冲击还有待观察。美国全国房价还会继续下跌多少？当然没人知道。但历史告诉我们，价格泡沫涨的越高，跌的也就越狠。那些住房市场的所谓专业人士仍然不肯面对现实。去年年初我曾写道，即便佛罗里达和加利福尼亚的房价已经崩溃，但这些市场房价仍然虚高。很自然地，我接到了地产中介商大批电子邮件，他们愤怒地在邮件中说我是个白痴（或是更难听的话）。此后发生的事情证实了我的分析。（顺带提一下：在住房泡沫时期，有谁听过哪家地产中介向某家媒体抱怨记者在房价问题上过于乐观了？或是抱怨记者在房市狂热时期发表不当言论推高市场了？）美国住房价格现在已经较2006年的峰值下跌了大约30%。按照这种跌幅来看，逆向思维的人不可避免地会开始怀疑房价是否已经下跌过度了。当然，住房市场肯定会有实惠交易。现在可是个买方市场。勇于冒险的人和机会主义者可能会发现物美价廉的交易。但就住房市场整体来说，形势并不像你希望的那样光明。即便是现在，整体房价也只是回落到2003年底的水平。但当时到那个阶段的时候，住房泡沫已经膨胀得很明显了。你可能会认为，这样大规模的危机可能会推动价格进一步回落。要找到泡沫开始前的房价，你必须得回溯到2000年左右，当时整体房价比现在低了三分之一。的确，抵押贷款利率已经跌到了4.5%-5%，位于 低的水平。但只凭藉这点下结论就太过简单化了。正如许多人所指出的，2003年到2005年的时候，美国利率水平同样处于灾难性的低位。那么房价是否会存在回升的可能？当然有。如果如一些人所预计的那样，政府为扭转经济投入的所有支出在一到两年内再次引发了通货膨胀，住房价格就可能会开始再次攀升。但如果目前的价格通货紧缩延续下去，房价只会继续下滑。长期来看，平均房价总是会随着平均盈利亦步亦趋。按这个指标来看，住房市场可能还会有不少下行空间。我回顾了直至1987年的Case-Shiller住房价格走势，并将其与联邦平均盈利数据作了比较。将1987年1月定为100，结果令人担忧。按照这个公认非常简单的指标，与平均盈利相比，目前的房价实际上仍然非常昂贵，甚至高于1989年地产泡沫的高峰期。同样值得注意的是，上次住房泡沫破灭的时候，市场过了大约八年时间才显现出真正强劲的复苏迹象。而这次的泡沫则要大得多。Brett Arends（编者按：本文作者Brett Arends是《华尔街日报》网络版专栏作家，他的专栏《投资回报》帮助投资者分析最新时事并做出相应投资决定。）相关阅读房价“地板”未必牢靠 2009-03-27


Homeowners are watching anxiously for any signs of housing market stabilization. So, too, are all those who believe the market may hold the key to the economy.And yet the most recent data makes for more gloomy reading.The closely watched Case-Shiller index, which tracks prices across twenty major cities, shows that through January the crash was getting worse, not better.And yet, even after these declines, homes overall still may not be that cheap relative to wages. More on that later.The headline numbers are grim enough. January's Case-Shiller index showed a 19% slump from a year earlier. The usual suspects fared very badly: Phoenix was down a remarkable 35%. Las Vegas fell 32% and Miami 29%.The crash has really spread, too. Minneapolis is down 20% and Chicago 16%. San Francisco, which had held up pretty well, has now turned in spectacular fashion. Prices there have fallen 32% in the past year, worse even than San Diego or Los Angeles.San Francisco prices fell 11% in the last three months alone, according to Case-Shiller.New York is down 10% over the last year, including a 4% decline in the last three months. That is still better than the average. Whether the market can withstand the crisis on Wall Street and widespread layoffs there remains to be seen.How much further will prices fall across the country? Nobody knows, of course. But history says the bigger the bubble, the bigger the crash.Those 'professionals' in the market continue to be wrong-footed. Early last year I wrote that even though prices in Florida and California had collapsed, those markets were still overvalued. Naturally I was on the receiving end of lots of angry emails from real estate brokers who told me I was an idiot (or worse). Events since then have borne out my analysis.(Incidentally: During the bubble, did a single broker ever complain to a media outlet that reporters were being 'too optimistic' about house prices, or were 'talking the market up' during a dangerous mania?)House prices nationwide have now fallen about 30% from their 2006 peak. At these levels the contrarian, inevitably, starts to wonder if they have fallen far enough.Certainly there are great deals out there. It is a buyer's market. The aggressive and opportunistic can probably find the worthwhile bargains.But for the market overall the picture isn't as hopeful as you'd like.Even today, prices overall have only reverted to levels seen in late 2003. Yet by that stage the bubble was already well inflated. You would expect a crash of this scale to retrace its steps much further. To find pre-bubble prices you have to go back to about 2000   when values overall were about a third lower than they are today.It's true that mortgage rates, now at 4.5% to 5%, are currently very low. But relying just on that is far too simplistic. Rates were also low from 2003 through 2005   as many pointed out, disastrously, at the time.Is there a bullish scenario for house prices? Sure. If all the government spending to turn around the economy reignites inflation in a year or two—as some predict—house prices could begin climbing again. But if the current price deflation continues, look for house prices to keep dropping.Over the long term, average home prices have tended to track average earnings. And by this measure the market may have much further to fall.I looked at Case-Shiller's index back to 1987 and compared it to federal data on average earnings. The result, rebased to 100 in January 1987, can be seen here. And it's alarming. By this (admittedly very simple) measure, today's home prices are actually more expensive, in relation to average earnings, than at the peak of the 1989 property bubble.Equally noteworthy is that when the last property bubble burst, it took about eight years before the market showed really strong signs of revival. This bubble was far, far bigger.Brett Arends