The Housing Bubble in New England
By Dean Baker
January 5, 2003
In the last eight and a half years, the country has experienced an
unprecedented run-up in home prices. Over this time, the rise in home sale
prices has been more than 40 percentage points higher than the overall rate of
inflation. Typically home prices have risen approximately in step with the
overall rate of inflation. Neither the great boom of the sixties, nor the
demographic surge created by the baby boomers forming their own households in
the seventies and eighties, led to any substantial increase in home prices,
adjusting for overall inflation.
The New England region has been at the center of this run-up in home
prices, experiencing an increase in home sale prices that exceeded the overall
rate of inflation by more than 70 percentage points over this period. The run-up
in home prices in New England over this period was more rapid than in any other
region of the nation. The table below shows the increase in home prices
(adjusted for the overall rate of inflation) in the United States as a whole,
the New England region, the Pacific Coast region (which had the second largest
run-up in prices), and each of the six New England States.
Table 1
Inflation Adjusted Increase in Home Prices
1995-2003
|
United
States |
34.7% |
|
New
England |
59.6% |
|
Pacific
States |
49.4% |
|
|
|
|
Connecticut |
36.4% |
|
Maine |
44.9% |
|
Massachusetts |
73.5% |
|
New
Hampshire |
67.8% |
|
Rhode
Island |
53.3% |
|
Vermont |
26.1% |
Source: Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight and Bureau of Labor Statistics.
While the most obvious explanation for this increase in home prices is
that it is due to a real estate bubble that paralleled the stock bubble – as
happened in Japan -- some analysts have attributed this run-up in home prices to
fundamental factors affecting the supply and demand for housing. This list of
factors includes:
1) an
increasing population due to immigration,
2)
limited supplies of urban land,
3)
environmental restrictions on building,
4)
growing incomes of homebuyers.
The problem with these explanations is that none of them are
new to this period – if these factors explain the current run-up in home prices,
then they should have also led to rising real home prices in prior decades, when
many of the factors (e.g. rising incomes) would have played a larger role in
pushing up home prices.
At a more basic level, if these fundamentals were to explain a run-up in
home prices, then they should also be driving up rental prices. If higher home
prices are due to an insufficient supply of housing, then the effects in the
sale and rental market should be comparable. While rents did originally outpace
overall inflation in the period from 1995-2002, they did not rise anywhere near
as much as home prices, increasing approximately 10 percentage points more than
the overall rate of inflation. More recently, rental inflation has slowed. In
the last year and a half rents nationwide have risen slightly less than the
overall rate of inflation. In some bubble markets, such as San Francisco and
Seattle, rents are actually falling. This pattern is completely inconsistent
with a run-up in home prices that is driven by fundamental factors, rather than
by a speculative bubble.
If the run-up in home prices in New England and elsewhere is attributable
to a speculative bubble, then it will inevitably burst. Like the stock market
crash, a collapse of the housing bubble is likely to be a serious blow to the
economy. It will virtually ensure a second dip to the recession. It is also
likely to be devastating to the personal finances of millions of families, whose
home is their largest financial asset.
Unfortunately, few families realize that much of the wealth in their
homes could disappear in a collapse of the housing bubble. As was the case with
the stock bubble, the vast majority of economic analysts have failed to
recognize the housing bubble. Families have been encouraged to treat housing as
a secure investment that can only appreciate in value. This view from experts
has led homeowners to borrow in record amounts – the ratio of equity to value is
at a post-war low among homeowners, in spite of the record appreciation in home
prices.
If home prices move back toward their pre-bubble levels, many families
will find that their mortgages equal or exceed the market value of their home,
leaving them with no equity. For aging baby boomers who are nearing retirement,
many of whom have recently lost much of their savings in the stock market crash,
such a blow may destroy any hopes of a financially secure retirement.
While some of the increase in home prices is likely to be real – just as
some “new economy” stocks have survived the crash, it is likely that the regions
experiencing the largest run-up in home prices will see the largest fall during
the crash. For this reason the New England region is especially vulnerable to a
downturn in the housing market.
Table 2 shows the real increase in home sale prices over the last five years in
the major metropolitan areas in the New England region. The last row shows the
real increase in rent in the Boston metropolitan area, the only metropolitan
area in the region for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a rent
index. As can be seen, the real increase in home prices vastly exceeds the
increase in rents in Boston in every city on the list. As is the case
nationally, the rate of increase in rental prices has slowed dramatically in the
Boston area. Over the last year, rent in the Boston area has increased by 3.6
percent, compared to increases of more than 7 percent in the prior two years.
This pattern of slowing rental inflation is consistent with the run-up in home
prices being explained by a speculative bubble instead of underlying factors in
the regional housing market.
Table 2
Inflation Adjusted Increase in Home Prices
1998-2003
|
Barnstable-Yarmouth,
MA |
79.2% |
|
Boston,
MA-NH |
55.0% |
|
Bridgeport,
CT |
40.9% |
|
Brockton,
MA |
63.3% |
|
Burlington,
VT |
26.3% |
|
Danbury |
34.3% |
|
Fitchburg-Leominster,
MA |
55.3% |
|
Hartford,
CT |
25.1% |
|
Lawrence,
MA-NH |
53.4% |
|
Lowell,
MA-NH |
54.2% |
|
Manchester,
NH |
54.9% |
|
Nashua,
NH |
61.8% |
|
New
Haven-Meriden, CT |
33.3% |
|
New
London-Norwich, CT-RI |
36.4% |
|
Portland,
ME |
41.1% |
|
Portsmouth-Rochester,
NH-ME |
50.2% |
|
Providence-Fall
River Warwick, RI-MA |
52.0% |
|
Stamford-Norwalk |
42.8% |
|
Waterbury,
CT |
24.5% |
|
Worcester,
MA-CT |
51.1% |
|
Boston – Rent
Index
|
12.0%
|
Source: Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight and Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
The public should be calling on presidential candidates to address the
issue of the housing bubble. The failure to recognize the stock market bubble
was the major cause of the current recession and the resulting job losses. While
it may be too late to prevent a sharp decline in house prices, the next
president should be prepared to offer a program of economic stimulus to
counter-act the recessionary effects of the bursting of the housing bubble.