The Bursting Bubble Ahead!
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:57 am
Harry Dent wrote...
I’ve been to Mumbai about three times in the past decade or
so. It’s the most packed city in India. There’s no doubt it’s
a magnificent, sprawling city full of wonder. Yet as far as
large cities go, many think it’s more affordable than urban
areas in China – a country that holds the world title for
the largest housing bubble on the planet! That might be.
But what I can tell you is that I’ve talked to a number of
hotel workers in Mumbai who have to travel as much as two
whole hours to get to work in the city. Living in the city
is completely out of the question. There’s no way they could
afford to. And even the surrounding areas are pushing it.
I’ve no doubt there are countless such workers in the U.S.,
but even for those who can pull off renting in a big city,
they haven’t got an easy time, either! The housing bubble
is now higher than ever in cities like San Francisco, Miami,
Denver, Dallas and Houston. They’re so bloated that most
of the people in these cities can’t afford to own a home
there. They can only rent. But here’s the catch-22: renting
hasn’t gotten easier. It’s gotten more expensive. By a lot!
Rents have been getting more and more expensive for three
whole decades now. Between 1985 and 2000, renters spent an
average of 24.2% of their income. Today, it’s 30.2%. That’s
24% higher! Going into 2006, owning a home was the more
attractive option. Now, in 11 of the largest U.S. cities,
all have seen rising renters. And nine of them are dominated
by renters:
At the top of the list is Miami, FL. That doesn’t surprise
me one bit as I used to live there. The average person can’t
afford to buy its real estate. Into 2006 Miami had one of
the biggest bubbles, and its crash was hence as extreme.
And now it’s bubbled again, this time more than ever, due
largely to foreign buyers from Latin America. The other
reason is that Miami has the lowest median wages of any
large city in the country. No wonder 65% of its residents
are renters! I doubt the Big Apple at No. 2 is any surprise
to you either. The city’s famous for being damn-near
impossible to live in, affordability-wise. Its median wages
are better than Miami’s, but still not as high as you’d expect.
Next comes Boston and L.A. at 60%. San Francisco’s a little
better at 57% – it at least has the highest median wages of
any major U.S. city. But its housing and rent costs are still
off the charts. Last is Philly. Compared to the others, it’s
more affordable and has higher than average median wages. But
of these 11 cities, its percentage of renters increased the
most from 2006 to 2013 – from 37% to 44%, a whopping 20%
increase. Overall, demand for rentals is rising so fast in
many cities it’s starting to overwhelm supply. That’s why
rental costs are rising, while ownership costs are falling.
It’s unfortunate for all of us because many of these renters
are millennials who, thanks to absurdly high rent costs, can’t
afford to save for a down-payment on a home even if they wanted
one – which right now, they don’t. And I can’t blame them!
They’re the first generation to see home prices fall significantly,
then take their sweet time trickling back up. But that means
millennials will be late to the homeowner party. And for us,
it will be devastating to our housing market as boomers increasingly
fall off the demographic cliff. It’s almost ironic, since thanks
to lower interest rates – much of that artificial – mortgage
payments have become more affordable since 2006, dropping from
21.3% to 15.1%, or 29% lower. But for now, millennials are
stuck renting. Their rental phase doesn’t peak until age 27,
which means we’ll continue to see demand for rentals increase
until at least 2017. That could be despite a deep downturn
ahead. After all, it’s not like all those millennials can go
back to live with mom and pop, as so many already have. For
homeowners – especially in these large cities – I continue to
advise you to sell all non-essential real estate. If you’re
holding onto property because you’re renting it out for stable
monthly income, that’s fine – though I’d much rather have the
cash on hand to buy up investments that get slaughtered through
the global downturn ahead:
But if you’re a boomer hoping to retire on the value of your
home in the next five to 20 years, think again. Demographics
show we’ll never see these heights again!
Wade says, "Reminds me of those 'duck-and-cover' episodes
us/we kids used to have to endure back in the '50's. I remember
ONE honest teacher who gave me the answer I was looking for
...believe it was when I was in the Fifth Grade over at
Bradley Elementary School. I asked him honestly what to
do...he said, 'kid, get under the desk, put your head between
your legs, and kiss your a** goodbye!' I will never forget
that...believe Harry Dent knows what he is talking about
here."
I’ve been to Mumbai about three times in the past decade or
so. It’s the most packed city in India. There’s no doubt it’s
a magnificent, sprawling city full of wonder. Yet as far as
large cities go, many think it’s more affordable than urban
areas in China – a country that holds the world title for
the largest housing bubble on the planet! That might be.
But what I can tell you is that I’ve talked to a number of
hotel workers in Mumbai who have to travel as much as two
whole hours to get to work in the city. Living in the city
is completely out of the question. There’s no way they could
afford to. And even the surrounding areas are pushing it.
I’ve no doubt there are countless such workers in the U.S.,
but even for those who can pull off renting in a big city,
they haven’t got an easy time, either! The housing bubble
is now higher than ever in cities like San Francisco, Miami,
Denver, Dallas and Houston. They’re so bloated that most
of the people in these cities can’t afford to own a home
there. They can only rent. But here’s the catch-22: renting
hasn’t gotten easier. It’s gotten more expensive. By a lot!
Rents have been getting more and more expensive for three
whole decades now. Between 1985 and 2000, renters spent an
average of 24.2% of their income. Today, it’s 30.2%. That’s
24% higher! Going into 2006, owning a home was the more
attractive option. Now, in 11 of the largest U.S. cities,
all have seen rising renters. And nine of them are dominated
by renters:
At the top of the list is Miami, FL. That doesn’t surprise
me one bit as I used to live there. The average person can’t
afford to buy its real estate. Into 2006 Miami had one of
the biggest bubbles, and its crash was hence as extreme.
And now it’s bubbled again, this time more than ever, due
largely to foreign buyers from Latin America. The other
reason is that Miami has the lowest median wages of any
large city in the country. No wonder 65% of its residents
are renters! I doubt the Big Apple at No. 2 is any surprise
to you either. The city’s famous for being damn-near
impossible to live in, affordability-wise. Its median wages
are better than Miami’s, but still not as high as you’d expect.
Next comes Boston and L.A. at 60%. San Francisco’s a little
better at 57% – it at least has the highest median wages of
any major U.S. city. But its housing and rent costs are still
off the charts. Last is Philly. Compared to the others, it’s
more affordable and has higher than average median wages. But
of these 11 cities, its percentage of renters increased the
most from 2006 to 2013 – from 37% to 44%, a whopping 20%
increase. Overall, demand for rentals is rising so fast in
many cities it’s starting to overwhelm supply. That’s why
rental costs are rising, while ownership costs are falling.
It’s unfortunate for all of us because many of these renters
are millennials who, thanks to absurdly high rent costs, can’t
afford to save for a down-payment on a home even if they wanted
one – which right now, they don’t. And I can’t blame them!
They’re the first generation to see home prices fall significantly,
then take their sweet time trickling back up. But that means
millennials will be late to the homeowner party. And for us,
it will be devastating to our housing market as boomers increasingly
fall off the demographic cliff. It’s almost ironic, since thanks
to lower interest rates – much of that artificial – mortgage
payments have become more affordable since 2006, dropping from
21.3% to 15.1%, or 29% lower. But for now, millennials are
stuck renting. Their rental phase doesn’t peak until age 27,
which means we’ll continue to see demand for rentals increase
until at least 2017. That could be despite a deep downturn
ahead. After all, it’s not like all those millennials can go
back to live with mom and pop, as so many already have. For
homeowners – especially in these large cities – I continue to
advise you to sell all non-essential real estate. If you’re
holding onto property because you’re renting it out for stable
monthly income, that’s fine – though I’d much rather have the
cash on hand to buy up investments that get slaughtered through
the global downturn ahead:
But if you’re a boomer hoping to retire on the value of your
home in the next five to 20 years, think again. Demographics
show we’ll never see these heights again!
Wade says, "Reminds me of those 'duck-and-cover' episodes
us/we kids used to have to endure back in the '50's. I remember
ONE honest teacher who gave me the answer I was looking for
...believe it was when I was in the Fifth Grade over at
Bradley Elementary School. I asked him honestly what to
do...he said, 'kid, get under the desk, put your head between
your legs, and kiss your a** goodbye!' I will never forget
that...believe Harry Dent knows what he is talking about
here."