Is there a house bubble in Edmonton?

smalltown

How to figure a home's fundamental value
Leamer 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.
/ F0 X8 B) T3 x( W
7 R0 m3 ~+ b. [4 R! I. RNot 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.
7 p6 T# B( s- I/ ?
% \# u0 S) @& O# |; X2 o  _2 `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.

3 I9 V/ A: ?/ n4 @* u) p" ^( ATo 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:


4 c  E4 ~% V4 I, dIn 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.
* o' r% k0 N) ?San Diego’s current P/E is nearly 30, compared with a 1989 high of 23.4.
New 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.
+ s. W) J# P( s+ V; Y# ~
If home prices are rising much faster than rents, as is true in Los Angeles, that’s a strong indication a bubble is forming.
  h% ]4 @8 S, Z
If home prices are rising while average rents are falling -- which is the situation in San Francisco -- the bubble is pretty much unmistakable.

- W* I) w; @) S  O7 H Home P/E ratios for 9 metro areas
5 E2 z! K1 m: X$ w, \ Avg. 1988-2000 2001
Boston  20.5 30.2
/ c/ O7 R* [! f' C  C4 g4 S$ J5 z; VSan Diego  22.8 29.7
- _* ?, {1 i+ ^6 n  k* DSan Francisco  23.8 27.2
& b1 U( D' g6 u9 ]( z: mLos Angeles  21.3 25.6
Seattle  20.4 25
2 w8 D( \' j' i7 m; b  ~7 p. U- YDenver  17.7 23.7
New York  21.2 22.5
. D% T% U/ ]' r& z, Q* J7 u. k7 {9 `Chicago  17.2 20.8
8 O# L& L) \) |4 y4 mWashington, D.C.  17.1 20.4



$ v7 G) P7 v# u" WIt'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.


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.
, ^2 d& P9 b2 W7 k* p" Z6 P! Y
it would be a good reference.

; h: g3 w* O' Y6 Q# X5 y0 Kthanks

醉酒当歌

20% buble at least. And it can take 3-5 years to digest the bubble if not burst.

" f( K) h1 o- y# J. t% u' K[ 本帖最后由 醉酒当歌 于 2007-1-14 16:41 编辑 ]