Looking Beyond the Housing-Market Hype

Before you go, we thought you'd like these...
Housing Boom
AP
By many metrics, the housing rebound is well under way, and sellers again have the upper hand in the market.

The median closing price for existing single-family homes in the United States hit $176,600 during the first quarter of this year. That's more than an 11 percent gain over 2012's first quarter, and the biggest year-over-year gain in nearly a decade.

But is the bump valid?

Well-funded investment management firms have been buying tremendous numbers of bargain-priced homes, especially in areas hit hard by the recession. That raises the question of whether rising home prices really indicate a sustained market recovery, or if the growth is just a facade fueled by Wall Street.

Playing Devil's Advocate

Around mid-2011, various metrics emerged that blatantly signaled a bottom in the housing market:
  • The Housing Affordability Index showed that the ratio of median income to median housing prices was roughly 40% above its 20-year average, meaning that home prices were much cheaper than usual in comparison to homeowners' capacity to pay based on their income.
  • The break-even appreciation rate for rental equivalent value, an indicator of whether buying is "cheaper" than renting, showed the best value for buying homes since the 1970s.
  • The high number of foreclosures suggested that many homes would be forced to transition to more stable, reliable owners.
  • And, of course, mortgage rates were held so low for so long that the easy access to liquidity made capital-intensive purchases the most appealing they had been in several years.
Like any crashed asset class, the housing market was bound to improve at some point. And based on the measures above, that point seemed to be mid-2011.

But the recovery we've seen might not tell the whole story.

Where Big Buyers are Snapping Up Homes

Phoenix was one of the hardest-hit areas in terms of home prices. And since the recovery began, it has shown some of strongest rebounds.

With plenty of bank-owned homes available at clearance prices, institutional money swooped in fast and furiously. A Forbes article from March quoted an increase in institutional investors from 16 percent of the market in 2011 to 26 percent. In the fourth quarter of 2012, Phoenix's home prices jumped 37 percent over the year-ago quarter.

A similar thing is happening in Miami, where home prices rose 11 percent throughout 2012, while institutional investors accounted for 30 percent of all homebuying activity. Meanwhile, in California, another scene of chaos during the housing crash, affordability is dropping. The California Association of Realtors releases a metric similar to the Housing Affordability Index (solely for California), and in the first quarter of 2013 the index reported that 44 percent of the population could afford a median-priced existing single-family home. In the year-ago quarter, that metric was 56 percent.

So hedge funds and banks are buying plenty of homes, which may make for attractive headlines regarding the housing market. At the same time, the average family is finding it harder and harder to get in a home.

Caution for Investors and Home Buyers?

Homebuilder stocks such as Lennar (LEN) are trading nearly 100 percent higher than they were two years ago based on strong fundamental data. But if this troubling trend proves true, these stocks might not be the no-brainer investment you think they are.

In fact, many mortgage investment funds and smaller real estate players who had been snapping up homes and repurposing them as rentals have stopped the practice, citing eroding fundamentals and sky-high prices. Carrington Holdings, a mortgage investment fund that also owns and manages thousands of single-family rental homes, has stopped buying rental properties. In the words of its CEO, "there's a lot of -- bluntly -- stupid money that jumped into the trade without any infrastructure, without any real capabilities and a kind of build-it-as-you-go mentality that we think is somewhat irresponsible."

If the early institutional money is already leaving housing because it's no longer attractive financially, what does this mean for the average American family looking to get into a home -- rented or owned?

The economy has improved substantially since the depths of the Great Recession, and there are still brighter days ahead. But, at this point in time, it seems that housing has become an overbought, possibly dangerous sector in which to invest.

Other real estate plays, however, still remain appealing.

Two Alternatives

Change your focus from residential to commercial. Giant commercial real estate firms, such as Simon Property Group (SPG), are pushing on the gas with outlet malls across the globe.

Simon is opening new outlet centers, buying existing ones, and partnering with emerging-market firms as part of its projection of increased demand for the retailers.

Technology is fueling growth in certain areas of real estate as well. Firms such as CyrusOne (CONE) specialize in co-location data centers. The growth runway for the industry is tremendous, and third-party players like CyrusOne stand to benefit greatly from the Big Data boom.

Whether either idea is appealing or not, the most important takeaway is that the underlying housing environment may not be as rosy as Wall Street has made it out to be. As an investor or a homeowner, keep this in mind when making your big-budget decisions.

Motley Fool contributor Michael Lewis has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Try any of our newsletter services free for 30 days.

15 PHOTOS
13 Major Suburbs Where Poverty Is Soaring
See Gallery
Looking Beyond the Housing-Market Hype

The number of poor households in the suburbs of Dayton, Ohio increased 109% to 97,581 from 2000 to 2011.

The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."

The number of poor households in Dallas increased 111% to 474,023 from 2000 to 2011.

Dallas metro area includes Fort Worth and Arlington. The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."

The number of poor households in Charlotte, N.C. increased 113% to 140,760 from 2000 to 2011.

Charlotte metro area also includes Gastonia and Rock Hill. The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."

The number of poor households in Detroit, Mich. increased 115% to 453,784 from 2000 to 2011.

Detroit metro area also includes Warren and Livonia. The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."

The number of poor households in Minneapolis, Minn. increased 128% to 204,901 from 2000 to 2011.

Minneapolis metro area also includes St. Paul and Bloomington. The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."

The number of poor households in Provo, Utah increased 129% to 39,784 from 2000 to 2011.

Provo metro area also includes Orem. The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."

Photo: Michael.Jolley, Flickr.com

The number of poor households in Boise City, Idaho increased 130% to 62,459 from 2000 to 2011.

The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."

The number of poor households in Phoenix, Ariz. increased 134% to 275,085 from 2000 to 2011.

Phoenix metro area also includes Mesa and Glendale. The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."

The number of poor households in Denver, Colo. increased 138% to 163,434 from 2000 to 2011.

Denver metro area also includes Aurora and Broomfield. The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."

The number of poor households in Las Vegas increased 139% to 214,883 from 2000 to 2011.

The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."

The number of poor households in Salt Lake City, Utah increased 142% to 115,109 from 2000 to 2011.

The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."

The number of poor households in Austin, Texas ballooned 143% to 103,248 from 2000 to 2011.

Austin metro area also includes Round Rock and San Marcos. The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."

Photo: heatheronhertravels, Flickr.com

Atlanta suburban poverty rose 159% to 780,078 from 2000 to 2011 –– by far the fastest growth in suburban poverty in the nation.

Atlanta metro area also includes Sandy Springs and Marietta. The increase in poverty was tracked by the Brookings Institute in "Confronting Suburban Poverty in America."
of
SEE ALL
BACK TO SLIDE
SHOW CAPTION +
HIDE CAPTION
Read Full Story

People are Reading