The Daily 2¢ - New Math, Old Reality

It’s been about a year and a half now since the husband and wife team of Gary and Margaret Hwang Smith, two professors of economics from Pomona College presented a paper at the Brookings Institute entitled “Bubble, Bubble Where’s the Housing Bubble?”.
Their paper initially took the fairly sound position of estimating a home’s “net present value” by calculating its potential cash flow, including rental income, but then proceeded at great lengths to justify the price appreciation seen during the boom years by making overly optimistic assumptions as well as including some truly fuzzy logic.
For example, the Smith’s assist the cash flow derived from rental income with additional value derived from “non-financial factors”, such as a “pride of ownership” and “desire for privacy”.
That’s about where the papers leaves reality and enters the realm of shameless contrivance.
I guess that might not be too surprising from a couple of professional real estate and financial “experts” who, having just recently purchased a nearly million dollar Craftsman style single family home in Claremont California, clearly had a lot at stake in justifying their “investment”.
The paper eventually concluded that many of the hyper inflated metro areas such as Boston, Los Angeles and Chicago were not only NOT bubbles they were actually UNDER PRICED.
"Buying a house at current market prices still appears to be an attractive long-term investment."
What’s worse though is that their paper (and story of their home purchase etc.) was picked up by the New York Times and published in an article titled “Some New Math on Homes” ironically on April Fool’s Day in 2006.
This article and the Smith’s paper undoubtedly did some serious damage as it painted that classic “things are different now” picture at the exact moment that the nation’s housing markets were beginning peak and then steadily decline.
I can only imagine the scores of people who read their story, bought into their proposition, and then felt more comfortable taking the plunge to home ownership right at the very peak of the market.
As if to add a final "insult to injury" the Smith’s now have a blog where they persist in making their “housing market still appears attractive” claim and further reveal that their analysis is to become the basis of a new book they have coming out titled “Houseonomics”.
Well, if it’s any consolation, it appears that the Smith’s home has not escaped the “actual” fundamentals of the downturn dropping nearly 2% on a year-over-year basis in August according to a SoCal Real Estate News and Data Source DataQuick.
Furthermore, southern California is now seeing homes sales fall steeply and steadily with the latest results showing sales dropping to their lowest level in 15 years.
With the S&P/Case-Shiller Futures for Los Angeles predicting continued declines to the price for single family homes and the inventory for Claremont climbing to new highs, the Smith’s may get what they deserve after all.
Labels: Bernanke, economy recession, Federal Reserve, home sales, houing bubble, national association of realtors
Copyright © 2009
PaperEconomy Blog - www.papereconomy.com
All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer
PaperEconomy Blog - www.papereconomy.com
All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer








9 Comments:
and to think they teach economics at Pomona College? what kind of crap are they teaching these kids? we'll have more young people out there bidding up houses when they graduate.
By
DAGG, at 12:15 PM
Indoctrination
By
Anonymous, at 8:31 PM
Wow. Really sad. I added them to Housing Bubble Hall of Shame®.
By
Tyrone, at 9:30 PM
Thanks for the link to their "blog": I can't find any comments there.
By
Anonymous, at 1:19 PM
I can't believe Stiglitz agrees with them! Do they give Nobel prizes to idiots these days?
By
Anonymous, at 3:56 PM
Well, its not like Stiglitz really agreed with their paper... he agreed, as many others do, that using a P/E ratio (based on rent) was a better way to value a home.
Their paper taken in its entirety though was a pile of nonsense.
Calling housing a "screaming buy" in the 2006 was foolish at best.
Both of these economists should have known better but since they are only pseudo-academics what can you expect.
By
SoldAtTheTop, at 7:40 PM
I heard Smith on the radio yesterday. How did he arrange that?!?! What will these fools say when this bubble pops and home prices fall 90%, back to the levels in the 1980s?
What page is that "screaming buy" quote on?
By
Anonymous, at 5:13 PM
My mistake...
the New York Times article stated that their findings suggested that "Homes in Orange County, Calif., were fairly priced, the Smiths found. Some cities like Dallas, Indianapolis and Atlanta were screaming bargains."
But the original paper titled "Bubble, Bubble, Where's the Housing Bubble?" doesn't identify their findings for those towns but does conclude:
"Housing prices have increased rapidly in the Los Angeles area in recent years and many
homebuyers have unrealistic expectations about future prices. The relevant question, however, is
not how much prices have increased in the past or how fast people expect them to increase in the
future, but whether, at current prices, a house is still a fundamentally sound investment. Our
answer is yes, even if the owner either buys for keeps (with no assumptions about future house
prices) or makes conservative assumptions about future housing prices."
So I think you have about the same position... They thought homes in southern California were fairly priced... so much so that they paid $950K for one in Claremont (apparently right at the peak) to boot!
By
SoldAtTheTop, at 8:21 PM
Can you find their address and Zillow the current value of their "investment"? That would be very interesting!
By
Anonymous, at 4:59 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home