advertising
Link to jump to start of content The Seattle Times Company Jobs Autos Homes Rentals NWsource Classifieds seattletimes.com
The Seattle Times Real Estate
Traffic | Weather | Your account Movies | Restaurants | Today's events

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Print

Nation's Housing

Owning home longer increases likelihood of making a profit

Syndicated columnist

Anybody thinking about buying or selling a house this spring probably is asking the same questions: In terms of historical real-estate cycles, is this a smart time for me to be in the market?

After a record five-year boom in prices and sales, isn't it obvious to everybody that the party is pretty much over in many places — especially in high-fizz, high-cost markets of the West Coast, Florida, Washington, D.C., Phoenix and Las Vegas? Won't rising mortgage rates and fast-accumulating inventories of unsold houses cool the market even further in the months ahead? Could appreciation rates sag — or actually swing negative — making any purchase I might close this spring look like a dumb move a year or two down the road?

These are all intelligent questions, and let's be frank: Nobody has the answers.

But new statistical research on the periodic ups and downs of home real-estate cycles offers some important insights into timing, length of ownership and rate of return on housing investments.

The research examined price data on 50 metropolitan housing markets from 1986 through 2005. During that period, price appreciation rates in some parts of the country — California, Texas and New England, among others — went through boom and bust cycles of differing magnitudes. In other areas, especially the Midwest, real-estate appreciation was steady and moderate with virtually no declines.

The study was conducted by Mark Milner, the chief risk officer for PMI Mortgage Insurance, a major loan underwriter that stands to lose large amounts of money whenever property values decline in any region of the country. The research used quarterly price data provided by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), which tracks home real-estate values in more than 300 metropolitan areas.

Milner concedes that his experience on timing home purchases has had setbacks.

"I'm one of the unlucky ones," he says. "In 1989, I bought a home in Los Angeles — right before the bottom fell out of the market. When I got a job in another city and sold seven years later, I lost my down payment and everything I'd put in since, and I even wrote a check to the bank for a little bit extra."

Ouch! Many homes in the Los Angeles area lost 25 to 30 percent of their resale value during the early 1990s, but leveled off and began appreciating again by the mid-1990s.

"But here's the thing," Milner continues. "I went on and bought another house and then still another after that. Despite a loss during the first seven years, in 17 years of homeownership, I've recouped that initial loss and a lot more — enough to make sending two kids to college a lot less daunting."

advertising
Milner's study assumed a 20 percent down payment on the median-priced home in each of the 50 metropolitan markets. Then it tracked the quarter-by-quarter appreciation performance of the median-priced home and came up with a statistical "proxy" for returns on investment in each market area.

Some broad conclusions relevant to the questions posed above about timing and cycles and profits and losses:

• Anybody who thinks home real-estate values can't go down is simply out to lunch. When local economies lose jobs, demand for houses drops and so do property values. Markets where prices have accelerated in part because of speculation by investors are particularly vulnerable when local economies go flat.

• The risk of loss is accentuated for buyers who do not hold on to their properties for long periods. The longer you own a house, the greater your probability of making a net profit on it, even if the local economy hits the skids for a while.

For example, looking at all 50 metropolitan areas during the recession-impaired 1991-1995 time period, owners who sold after just five years of holding experienced the biggest losses, with 12 percent of owners suffering net losses of about 10 percent. People who bought during that period and hung on for 10 years ultimately made net returns, despite the intervening recession years.

Between 1996 and 2000, those who sold their houses within five years of buying had a 1 in 20 chance of losing money on the transaction, with losses averaging 10 percent. Between 1986 and 2005, 99.6 percent of homebuyers who held on to their houses for at least 10 years made money.

The upshot: Yes, timing matters. If you buy at the top of an inflation cycle as a speculator and sell into an economic down cycle a couple of years later, you can lose a bunch of money. But if you buy a house and live in it for five, seven, 10 years, the odds are good that you'll come out ahead — even if, like Milner, you bought at the wrong time upfront.

Kenneth R. Harney: kenharney@earthlink.net

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

Marketplace

advertising

advertising

More shopping