Nationwide s Health of Housing Markets (HoHM) Report

Transcription

1 Nationwide s Health of Housing Markets (HoHM) Report Nationwide Economics 215 Q1 Data as of 214 Q4 HoHM Report Executive Summary: The national LIHHM* shows that t the overall housing market is healthier than at any time since 21 (earliest available data), suggesting that there is little reason to fear a national housing downturn over the next year. Regionally, the LIHHM performance rankings show that the housing markets in the vast majority of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) are healthy. This suggests that few regional housing markets are vulnerable to a housing downturn in the next year. None of the housing markets in the nation s largest 4 MSAs are in negative territory, and only six of them are even neutral. The healthiest housing markets in the nation are in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Philadelphia. Only two MSAs in the nation are in negative territory (Bismarck, ND and Atlantic City, NJ), and even these are nearly in the neutral zone. * Leading Index of Healthy Housing Markets (LIHHM): A data-driven view of the near-term performance of housing markets based upon current health indicators for the national housing market and 373 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and divisions across the country. See more at

2 The national LIHHM is at a record high, suggesting a healthy national housing market The current value for the national LIHHM is 19.8, a modest increase from the previous quarter and the highest level in its history (data back to 21). An index value over 1 suggests that the national housing market is healthy, with lower chances of a housing downturn over the next year as the index moves increasingly above the 1 breakeven value. In the fourth quarter, the employment, mortgage market, and house price growth components of the LIHHM remained positive. Household formations increased at a faster pace, but a continued tight mortgage lending environment remains an impediment to even stronger national housing activity. Regionally, the LIHHM performance rankings show that the majority of metropolitan statistical ti ti areas (MSAs) across the country are healthy, with only two in negative territory, indicating that few regional housing markets are vulnerable to a housing downturn in the near term. National LIHHM LIHHM Scores* MSA LIHHM Performance Rankings 4 35 Number of MSAs Performance Rankings* * See appendix for full descriptions See more at Nationwide Economics Page 2

3 The regional LIHHM rankings show that the vast majority of local housing markets are healthy The LIHHM rankings are generally highest in the Midwest and Northeast, indicating that these are the regions that are least likely to have a housing downturn in the near term. Current LIHHM performance rankings are negative (but only slightly) in just two MSAs, while about 15 percent are neutral indicating only a modest risk of a downturn in these areas over the next year. Six MSAs are in the +3 ranking (very healthy), with more than 1 in the +2 ranking many of which just missed being in the top 1. Among the bottom 1, only two were in negative territory with the rest in the neutral zone (suggesting that bottom 1 isn t all that bad today). Performance Rankings Top 1 MSAs Bottom 1 MSAs Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area 1 Pittsburgh PA 2 Cleveland-Elyria OH 3 Philadelphia PA 4 Rockford IL 373 Bismarck ND 372 Atlantic City-Hammonton NJ 371 New Orleans-Metairie LA 37 Lafayette LA 5 Burlington NC 369 Casper WY 6 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre PA 7 Fayetteville-Springdale AR-MO 8 Idaho Falls ID 9 Tulsa OK 1 Kennewick-Richland WA 368 Ocean City NJ 367 Austin-Round Rock TX 366 Monroe LA 365 Dallas-Plano-Irving TX 364 Houston TX Data as of 214 Q4 Nationwide Economics Page 3

4 None of the top 4 * MSAs have a LIHHM performance ranking that is negative, and only six are even neutral, suggesting that the major U.S. housing markets are healthy h with little l chance of a downturn in the near term in most of them. Performance Rankings MSAs by size (Top 4), with corresponding performance rankings Performance Rankings: Data as of 214 Q4 Metropolitan Statistical Area Current Prior Qtr Prior Year 1 New York-Jersey City-White Plains NY-NJ Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale CA Chicago-Naperville-Arlington Heights IL Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land TX 5 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell GA Washington-Arlington-Alexandria DC-VA Dallas-Plano-Irving TX 8 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale AZ Philadelphia PA Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario CA Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington MN-WI Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater FL St Louis MO-IL San Diego-Carlsbad CA Seattle-Bellevue-Everett WA Denver-Aurora-Lakewood CO Baltimore-Columbia-Towson MD Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine CA Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills MI Pittsburgh PA Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley CA Nassau County-Suffolk County NY Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro OR-WA Miami-Miamii i Beach-Kendall FL Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford FL Cincinnati OH-KY-IN Fort Worth-Arlington TX Cleveland-Elyria OH Kansas City MO-KS San Antonio-New Braunfels TX Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade CA Newark NJ-PA Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise NV Boston MA Columbus OH Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia NC-SC Austin-Round Rock TX 38 San Francisco-Redwood City-CA Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson IN Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-FL * Largest 4 determined by number of households Nationwide Economics Page 4

5 LIHHM as a leading indicator of the housing bust The last economic expansion (21-27) created an unprecedented housing boom, with house prices peaking in 26 up by more than 7 percent over this period. The LIHHM (as shown by the national index falling below 1 early in 25 and the vast majority of MSAs falling into negative LIHHM performance rankings by the fourth quarter of that year) suggested that the national and almost all the regional housing markets were not healthy and that a housing downturn was likely. Data as of 25 Q4 Performance Rankings: LIHHM as a leading indicator of the housing recovery Following the housing bust and the Great Recession, national house prices didn t start to rebound until 212, with home sales finally moving upward in the second half of 211. By the end of 21, the LIHHM performance rankings in about two-thirds of the regional markets had turned positive or neutral, while the national index rose a bit above 1 at the start of 211, indicating a somewhat healthier housing market and presaging the current modest housing recovery. Data as of 21 Q4 Performance Rankings: Nationwide Economics Page 5

6 While almost all local housing markets are healthy, about 25 percent worsened over the past year. Still, slightly more improved than worsened. The best measure of the near-term health of housing markets is the current LIHHM, but looking at movements in the LIHHM over the course of a year can give useful information as well. About 28 percent of regional housing markets improved over the past year (the smallest share since 29), while approximately 25 percent worsened (the remainder were unchanged). There are some modest regional patterns in these changes, with pockets of LIHHM increases centered in the Midwest and the Northeast. LIHHM decreases are more prevalent in the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast areas. Current LIHHM 4Q change +3 INCREASED UNCHANGED -3 DECREASED Largest Increase Largest Decrease Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area 1 Elmira NY 2 Ithaca NY 3 Erie PA 373 Bismarck ND 372 Bellingham WA 371 Roanoke VA 4 Decatur IL 37 Bloomington IN 5 Johnstown PA 6 Danville IL 7 Bowling Green KY 8 Flint MI 9 Clarksville TN 1 Anniston-Oxford AL 369 Atlantic City-Hammonton NJ 368 Rapid City SD 367 Wheeling WV 366 Gainesville FL 365 Waterloo-Cedar Falls IA 364 Ocean City NJ Change in performance ranking; Data as of 214 Q4 Nationwide Economics Page 6

7 Appendix Leading Index of Healthy Housing Markets (LIHHM) Nationwide s LIHHM is a data-driven view of the near-term performance of housing markets based upon current health indicators for the national housing market and 373 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs*) and divisions across the country. For each MSA, the LIHHM uses local-level data to incorporate the idiosyncratic characteristics of regional housing markets. The focus of the LIHHM is on the entire housing market, rather than merely a projection of house prices or home sales. Nationwide Economics LIHHM methodology The LIHHM is calculated using a number of variables that describe many of the drivers of the housing market for each MSA. In order to provide the best indicator of housing health, the included variables and corresponding weights for each provide the optimal leading perspective on future housing markets for each MSA. The drivers can be grouped into the following categories: 1. Employment 2. Demographics 3. Mortgage Market 4. House Prices As an illustration, if job growth increases in an MSA, then the resulting rise in incomes creates additional housing demand. Consumers have a greater ability to earn and save for home purchases, increasing sales and pushing up house prices. The LIHHM measures the movements in the included employment, demographic, mortgage market, and house price variables versus the long-term trends within each MSA. These drivers are used to derive an overall LIHHM score on a scale from 75 to 125 centered around a neutral value of 1. These values are placed into performance rankings to allow for better comparisons across MSAs. These performance rankings are the key metric in comparing the MSAs both to each other and across time. Raw LIHHM values are used for calculation purposes only and will only be shown on the national level as the national score is standalone and is not compared to other areas. * MSA: Geographical region with high population density and close economic ties throughout the nearby area, capturing 85-9% of the U.S. population Nationwide Economics Page 7

8 Authored by Nationwide Economics DAVID BERSON, PhD Senior Vice President, Chief Economist David holds a doctorate in Economics and a master s degree in Public Policy from the University of Michigan. Prior to Nationwide, David served as Chief Economist, Strategist and Head of Risk Analytics for The PMI Group, Inc., and Vice President and Chief Economist for Fannie Mae. David has also served as Chief Financial Economist at Wharton Econometrics and visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. His government experience has included roles with the President s Council of Economic Advisors, U.S. Treasury Department and the Office of Special Trade Representative. He is a past President of the National Association for Business Economics. BRYAN JORDAN, CFA Deputy Chief Economist Bryan is a frequent author and knowledgeable source on economic topics, and has been featured in The Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Bryan holds degrees in Economics and Political Science from Miami University and has earned the Chartered Financial Analyst designation. He currently serves as Chairman of the Ohio Council on Economic Education and is a member of the Ohio Governor s Council of Economic Advisors, the National Association for Business Economics, and the Bloomberg monthly economic forecasting panel. BEN AYERS, MS Staff Economist Ben authors periodic economic analyses from the Nationwide Economics team, as well as commentary on key economic topics. Ben is also responsible for understanding and analyzing the enterprise business drivers to assist the strategic planning process. He holds a Master of Science in Economics from the Ohio State University, specializing in applied economic analysis, and a BSBA from the Fisher College of Business at the Ohio State University, with a focus on economics and international business. Additional contributors: Chrissy Charters, Michael Groom, Ankit Gupta, Steve Hall, Francine Murzynski, and Matt Workman This material is provided by Nationwide Economics and is general in nature. It is not intended as investment or economic advice, or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or adopt any investment strategy. Additionally, it does not take into account the specific investment objectives, tax and financial condition or particular needs of any specific person. We encourage you to seek the advice of an investment professional who can tailor a financial plan to meet your specific needs. The economic and market forecasts in this report reflect our opinion as of the date of this presentation/review and are subject to change without notice. These forecasts show a broad range of possible outcomes. Because they are subject to high levels of uncertainty, they may not reflect actual performance. Case studies and examples are for illustrative purposes only. We obtained certain information from sources deemed reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy, completeness or fairness. Nationwide, the Nationwide N and Eagle and Nationwide is on your side are service marks of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. NFM-13575AO Nationwide Economics Page 8