Housing What's Behind the Boom
Conditions have been almost ideal for the housing industry in recent years.
Mortgage interest rates hit their lowest levels in more than four decades, making it much easier for Americans to buy houses. Many people who were burned in the stock-market bubble of the late 1990s decided that real estate was the best place to stash spare cash. The children of baby boomers began buying their first houses even as their parents started purchasing second homes or speculating on rental units. And American businesses finally began creating jobs again.
THE JOURNAL REPORT
See the full Trends report.Home builders couldn't put up houses fast enough to keep up with all this demand. As a result, home prices are up by an average of 53% from five years ago, according to the closely watched index published by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
Almost everyone agrees that prices can't keep rising this fast much longer. The debate now is whether the boom will lead to a soft landing, with gentler price increases, or to a long, painful bust, in which prices fall considerably in some places before buyers regain confidence.
However the current boom ends, longer-term forces are reshaping the housing industry. Here is a look at some of them.
1 > SHORT ON SPACE
America still has lots of wide-open spaces, but many of them aren't where people want to live. And builders are finding it more difficult to get permits to put up new houses in many of the more economically vibrant metropolitan areas, particularly along the East and West coasts.
"The housing supply has been constrained by government regulation as opposed to fundamental geographic limitations," concludes a paper released in December 2004 by Edward L. Glaeser, an economics professor at Harvard University, and two colleagues.
Homeowners share the blame. Prof. Glaeser's paper says they have grown savvier about organizing themselves to block proposals that would bring new and more densely packed housing to their neighborhoods -- something that they fear could reduce the value of existing homes.
In the more crowded markets, home values no longer have much to do with the cost of building a home. In San Francisco, the paper estimates, the structure itself typically accounts for no more than 30% of a home's value; the rest of the value reflects the costs of land and obtaining regulatory approvals to build. That's why some people pay as much as $1 million for an old home, immediately tear it down and build a new one.
2 > STRAINED BUDGETS
The housing boom has enriched many Americans by pushing up the values of their homes. But it hasn't been splendid for everyone. Nearly a third of American households spend more than 30% of their income on housing, and more than one in eight households spend more than 50%, according to the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. Others move to distant suburbs so they can pay less for housing, but then must pay high costs to commute. A third of all households in the Boston area are at least 30 miles from the central business district, according to a Harvard study, and about a fifth live 40 or more miles out.
For people with modest incomes, housing has soared out of reach in some areas. The California Association of Realtors estimates that only 15% of households in that state earn enough to buy a median-priced home, currently costing about $544,000, without spending more than 30% of their income on mortgage payments, real-estate taxes and home insurance.
3 > A SHRINKING FORECAST
For years, homes have been getting steadily bigger. The median size of new single-family homes in 2004 was 2,140 square feet, up from 1,535 square feet in 1975, according to the Census Bureau.
But some academics and industry people believe more Americans will embrace smaller, more urban homes, to avoid long commutes. James Z. Pugash, chief executive officer of Hearthstone Inc., San Rafael, Calif., which finances housing developments, predicts that American cities will become more like their European counterparts, with more midrise buildings, higher housing costs and fewer square feet per person.
In a 2004 paper for the Brookings Institution, Arthur C. Nelson, a professor at Virginia Tech, says there are at least tentative signs of growing demand for more "walkable" living environments combining homes, entertainment and offices. He cites as a model Arlington County, Va., near Washington. In 1990, Mr. Nelson writes, the conventional wisdom was that the county was "built out" and lacked space for more residents. Yet the population continues to grow rapidly. Mr. Nelson says the county is encouraging higher-density housing on former industrial sites and near mass-transit stations, while preserving the character of established neighborhoods.
The desire for more urban living -- and speculation that it will grow -- has spawned a boom in condominiums. In the 12 months ended in August, sales of condos and cooperative housing soared 14%, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 942,000 units. In the same period, sales of single-family homes rose a more modest 6.9%.
4 > TAKING A RISK
As home prices have soared, lenders have promoted loans that help people afford houses that otherwise would be beyond their reach. These "affordability" loans hold down monthly payments in the early years but subject borrowers to the prospect of much higher payments later.
Among the most popular of these loans are interest-only mortgages, which allow borrowers to avoid paying down any of the principal in the first few years. Another twist is the payment-option loan, giving borrowers a choice of several payment levels each month, including one that is less than the interest due. If the borrower makes that choice, the loan balance increases, something known as negative amortization.
Lenders also have reduced the amount of documentation that many borrowers have to provide to verify their income and assets.
Bank regulators have started asking questions about all of these practices. The fear is that some borrowers have exaggerated their income or won't be able to meet the higher monthly payments once they come due. Another concern is that affordability loans have artificially pumped up housing prices by allowing people to bid more than they can really afford to pay in the long run.
5 > THE HOME AS PIGGY BANK
The traditional goal of homeowners is to pay off the mortgage -- well before retirement, if possible. For now, many Americans seem to have forgotten that notion.
To take advantage of lower interest rates, Americans regularly refinance their loans. In the process of refinancing, they often borrow a bit more -- in effect swapping home equity for cash to spend on other things. Such "cash out" refinances totaled $139 billion in 2004, according to Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies. Egged on by lenders, other people take out separate home-equity loans, using their homes as collateral.
"I guess this generation believes that real-estate values will go up forever, so there's no need to pay down principal," said Angelo R. Mozilo, chief executive officer of Countrywide Financial Corp., the nation's largest mortgage lender, during a conference call with investors last year.
This blithe attitude has fueled consumer spending. A recent Federal Reserve study found that borrowing against home values added $600 billion to American consumers' spending power last year, or 7% of personal disposable income, up from 3% in 2000 and 1% in 1994.
6 > FOREIGN FRENZY
The proliferation of riskier mortgage loans comes as foreign investors are playing a larger role in financing the U.S. housing market.
Investors in Asia and Europe have long been major buyers of debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored providers of mortgage financing. Now they also are buying an increasing amount of mortgage-backed securities, bonds backed by the payments of interest and principal on large pools of mortgages.
There are no reliable figures on the total size of foreign investments in U.S. mortgage securities, because many of the purchases are indirect, made through U.S. entities. But the direction is clear. Inside Mortgage Finance, a newsletter, estimates that foreign holdings of one type of mortgage bond -- those not guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie -- jumped to $40 billion as of June 30 from $30 billion six months earlier.
7 > REDUCED-RATE REALTORS
The Internet hasn't slashed transaction costs in residential real estate, as it has in such areas as airline reservations. Commissions paid to agents still average more than 5% and sometimes reach 7% or more, according to industry estimates.
But brokers offering various cost-saving alternatives finally seem to be gaining traction. Many small brokers charge a flat fee, generally around $500, for putting a house into a multiple-listing service and providing a limited menu of other services; the consumer then typically offers to pay an additional 2.5% or 3% of the purchase price to any agent who supplies a buyer. Other brokers offer to rebate part of any commissions to the consumer.
Some traditional brokers are experimenting with their own discount arms, even as they try to preserve the full-commission business by backing state laws that mandate a minimum level of service.
U.S. antitrust enforcers at the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission are putting heavy pressure on the industry to give new models a chance. For instance, the Justice Department in September sued the National Association of Realtors, alleging that its policy on sharing of listing information discriminates against brokers that mainly use Web sites to engage with their customers. The association denies that claim.
8 > THE BIG GET BIGGER
Home building used to be mostly a local business, and there are still around 80,000 home builders in the country, most of them tiny. But the biggest builders are gobbling up more of the market. This year, the top 10 builders account for about 24% of the market (excluding homes built for customers on land they already own), up from 10% in 1997, says Ara K. Hovnanian, chief executive of Hovnanian Enterprises Inc., a large builder based in Red Bank, N.J. Within a decade, he predicts, that share will be more than 50%.
Big players have the upper hand partly because they have the financial resources to acquire prime parcels of land. Robert I. Toll, chief executive of Toll Brothers Inc., Horsham, Pa., says he often approves land purchases of $100 million or more, something small builders couldn't contemplate.
But Ivy Zelman, chief housing analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston in New York, says the big builders already have grabbed the easiest market-share gains in fast-growing metropolitan areas and now increasingly are butting heads with one another. That may make future market-share gains slower and more expensive.
9 > GIMME MORE SHELTER
Americans have made so much money from their homes that they can't resist buying more real estate. Investment properties and vacation homes accounted for 14% of new mortgages last year, up from 7% in 2000, the Federal Reserve says.
Much of this buying comes from baby boomers seeking retirement homes or people hoping to strike it rich as landlords. While these purchases have helped to feed the recent strength in housing, they also could make the market more volatile. That's because second homes and rental properties, unlike primary residences, can easily be dumped onto the market if their owners lose confidence or fail to find reliable tenants.
10 > WATCHING THE RANKINGS
J.D. Power & Associates, the consulting and research firm best known for its surveys of automobile quality, also quizzes buyers of new homes. The home surveys, which began in 1997, now cover 30 large metropolitan areas.
Companies that have done well in the surveys -- such as Pulte Homes Inc. and Centex Corp. -- are trumpeting the results. That's forcing other builders to try harder to score as well.
One problem for the industry is that it relies mainly on a continually changing cast of subcontractors to perform tasks like pouring foundations, installing heating ducts and shooting nails into roofing tiles. That makes it hard to ensure that quality standards are always met. Hovnanian Enterprises is experimenting with using its own employees to do more of the tasks in some markets in an effort to improve consistency.
Among other things, says Bruce Karatz, chief executive of KB Home, the surveys have nudged his company into communicating better with customers, including giving them earlier estimates of when houses will be completed. If KB is more than 30 days late, he says, "many customers will never forgive us."
地产业－繁荣的背后
这几年，地产业的发展环境真可以用“完美”二字来形容。
抵押贷款利率降至四十多年来的最低水平，美国人买房子容易多了。很多在九十年代末股市泡沫破灭时大伤元气的人们痛定思痛，看中了地产行业，认为这里才是剩余现金的最好去处。婴儿潮一代的子女开始购买自己的第一套住房，而他们的父母则在购置第二套房产，或者投资一些可出租的公寓。此外，美国企业界也终于开始创造新增就业机会了。
建房的速度根本满足不了这么多方方面面的需求，结果也就显而易见了。根据联邦住屋企业督察局(Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight)公布的备受关注的指数，住宅价格较5年前平均上涨了53%。
大家都认为如此迅猛的价格涨势难以持久。但分歧在于这场繁荣是会缓慢温和地、以价格增幅逐渐收缩的方式结束，还是某些市场的价格率先暴跌、令买方经受梦想破灭之痛，然后再慢慢恢复信心呢？
无论结局如何，具有长期影响力的种种因素正在重塑地产业的格局，在此我们略作分析。
1. 空地有限
广袤的美国国土上仍有大量空旷的领地，但很多地方并不能吸引人们前去居住。而在某些经济活力充沛的都市地区，尤其是东海岸和西海岸市场，建房企业却发现获得新屋建筑许可越来越难了。
哈佛大学(Harvard University)经济学教授格拉泽(Edward L. Glaeser)及两位同事在2004年12月发表的论文中得出结论：住房供应受到的主要限制因素是政府条例，而非地理局限。
业主也难辞其咎。格拉泽教授的论文指出，业主们越来越精明，纷纷组织起来阻挠那些将在自家周围新增更紧凑住房的规划，担心这会让他们现有房屋的价值下降。
在某些拥挤的地产市场上，房屋价值已经与建房成本关系不大了。论文估算，在旧金山，一套住宅的结构本身往往只占住宅价值的不到30%；其余部分则是购地和获得政府审批的成本。这也就是有些人情愿支付100万美元巨资购置一所旧宅，立即拆除，然后再建新屋的原因所在了。
2. 预算有限
地产业的繁荣兴旺让很多美国人富裕起来，他们的房产不断升值。但并非每个人都能分享到这块蛋糕。哈佛大学住房研究联合中心(Joint Center for Housing Studies)的数据显示，接近三分之一的美国家庭将收入的逾30%用于房产，八分之一以上的家庭这项开支超过了50%。其他人则搬到偏远的郊区，来降低购房支出，但又必须支付高额通勤费。哈佛大学的研究还显示，波士顿地区三分之一的家庭都居住在距中央商务区至少30英里以外的地段，大约五分之一家庭住在40英里以外。
对某些地区的中等收入人群来说，房屋价格的上涨已经令他们力所不及。据加州地产经纪商协会(California Association of Realtors)估算，加州只有15%的家庭有足够收入买得起中档价位的房屋（目前约为544,000美元），在月供、地产税和房屋保险上的支出不超过月收入的30%。
3. 人均住房面积有望减少
这些年，住宅面积越建越大。人口普查局(Census Bureau)数据显示，一套新建的单户型住宅2004年的平均面积是2,140平方英尺，而在1975年只有1,535平方英尺。
但有些专家和业内人士相信，美国人会喜欢更小、更接近市区的住房，避免长途通勤之累。位于加州圣拉斐尔的Hearthstone Inc.为住宅开发项目提供融资，公司首席执行长普加什(James Z. Pugash)预测，美国各大城市会逐渐向欧洲城市靠拢，兴建更多中层楼宇，人均住房成本上升，住房面积下降。
Virginia Tech教授尼尔森(Arthur C. Nelson)在2004年发表的论文中表示，至少有一些短期迹象表明，人们对综合了住宅、娱乐及办公等多种功能的生活环境的期盼有所增加。他以华盛顿附近的弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿县为例写道，1990年时，人们普遍认为该县已经“扩建”，无力容纳更多居民了。然而，这里的人口数量继续迅速增加。尼尔森说，县里鼓励在旧的工业区和交通中转站附近兴建高密度住宅，同时采取措施保护了已建住宅区的风貌。
对市区居住环境的渴望──预计还会不断升级──已经推动了分户出售的公寓的蓬勃发展。截至8月份的12个月内，分户出售的公寓和集体住宅的销量激增14%，经季节性因素调整后的出售年率为942,000套。而同期单户型住宅的销量仅温和增加了6.9%。
4. 风险重重
面对房价有增无减的上涨势头，贷款人一直在积极放贷，帮助人们购买他们不贷款就无力承担的住房。这些“量力而为”的贷款安排可以压低最初几年的月供，但后期月供会高出很多。
在最受欢迎的贷款方式中，有些是“只付利息”的按揭，也就是说申请人在还贷的最初几年不必偿还本金。另一种是还贷方式可选的按揭，申请人可以选择不同额度的月供，最低甚至低于当期应付利息。如果申请人选择了这种方式，未付贷款本息就会增加，也就是所谓的“倒欠型”按揭。
放贷人还减少了申请人为证明自己收入和资产所需提交的文件的数量。
银行监管机构已经对所有这些行为提出了质疑。他们担心有些申请人夸大了自己的收入水平，或者等到该偿付高额月供时无力偿付。他们还担心，这些“量力而为”的贷款使得人们可以购买长期来看超出其支付能力的房产，已经人为抬高了房价。
5. 房产好比存钱罐
购房者通常的目的都是：在可能的情况下，尽早在退休前偿清贷款。但现在，很多美国人似乎早就忘了这一点。
为了乘上低利率的东风，美国人定期将贷款进行再融资。在这个过程中，他们往往拆借更多──实际上是将房产变换成现金，用于其它支出。根据哈佛大学住房研究联合中心的数据，这类“套现”再融资的总额在2004年达到了1,390亿美元之巨。在放贷人的支持下，有些人以自己的房产作抵押获得了另外的房地产贷款。
美国最大的抵押贷款发放公司Countrywide Financial Corp.的首席执行长玛兹罗(Angelo R. Mozilo)在去年的投资者电话会议上说，看来这一代人相信房产价格会永远持续上涨，所以根本用不著偿还本金。
这种乐观态度推动了消费者支出的不断增长。美国联邦储备委员会(Federal Reserve, 简称Fed)最近的调查发现，去年以房产价值为抵押的贷款增加了6,000亿美元，占个人可支配收入总额的7%，远远高于2000年的3%和1994年的1%。
6. 外资狂热
在这种风险偏高的抵押贷款方式日渐流行之际，外国投资者在美国住房市场融资领域也扮演了越来越重要的角色。
长期以来，亚洲和欧洲的投资者都是联邦国民抵押贷款协会（Fannie Mae, 简称：房利美)和联邦住房贷款抵押公司(Freddie Mac)所发债券的主要买家，这是两家由政府资助的抵押贷款发放公司。现在，亚欧两洲的投资者正在不断增持抵押担保证券，也就是以大量抵押贷款的利息和本金偿还为担保的债券。
外国人对美国抵押证券的投资总额一直没有可靠数据，因为很多购买行为都是通过美国的实体间接完成的。但是，资金流向很明确。新闻通讯Inside Mortgage Finance估算，截至6月30日的6个月期间，外国人持有的不经房利美或Freddie担保的抵押债券激增至400亿美元，此前6个月的总额为300亿美元。
7. 地产经纪商压低费率
在住宅地产交易领域，互联网未能像在机票预订等领域那样成功削减交易成本。业内人士估算，房产中介的平均佣金仍然能超过5%，有时还高达7%。
但是，经纪人提供的种种节省成本的替代方案最终似乎还是赢得了客户的青睐。很多小型的经纪机构只收取平平常常的费用，将一套住房的待售信息列入多个清单，并提供内容有限的其他服务，一般只收费500美元左右。购房者通常要向提供房源的代理中介支付房价的2.5%或者3%，作为佣金。有些经纪机构会向购房者提供部分佣金返还。
一些传统的经纪机构虽然通过对制定最低服务费标准的州法律的大力支持来力求保住全额佣金的业务，但也纷纷尝试著成立了自己的折扣服务机构。
美国司法部(Justice Department)和联邦贸易委员会(Federal Trade Commission)的反垄断执法机构都在向地产行业施加强大压力，要求他们给新的业务模式提供尝试的机会。例如，司法部今年9月份起诉全国地产经纪商协会(National Association of Realtors)，称后者的房源信息分享政策歧视了那些主要通过网络接触客户的经纪机构。全国地产经纪商协会否认了这项指控。
8. 大者愈大
一直以来，房建项目大多数都是由本地公司承接的，目前全美国仍有大约80,000家房建公司，绝大部分都是小型公司。但规模最大的那几家正在抢占更多市场份额。纽约州大型房建公司Hovnanian Enterprises Inc.的首席执行长霍夫纳尼安(Ara K. Hovnanian)说， 今年，美国十大房建公司共占领了大约24%的市场（在客户自有土地上兴建的住宅除外），大大高于1997年的10%。他还预计，10年之内这个比例会突破50%。
大型公司之所以能够占据上风，部分原因就在于他们资金雄厚，能够获得黄金地段。宾夕法尼亚州Toll Brothers Inc.的首席执行长托尔(Robert I. Toll)说，他经常批准1亿美元或者更高的购地计划，这是有些小型公司想都不敢想的。
但是，瑞士信贷第一波士顿(Credit Suisse First Boston)驻纽约的首席地产分析师泽尔曼(Ivy Zelman)认为，大型房建公司已经在大都市地区获得了那些最容易实现的市场占有率的增长，而且争夺非常激烈。此后要想扩大市场占有率会变得更难，成本更高，增幅也会放缓。
9. 需求更多
美国人已经在房产上赚了这么多钱，因此忍不住想买更多房产。Fed表示，投资性物业和度假屋已经占到去年新增按揭的14%，而2000年只有7%。
大部分购买行为都来自婴儿潮一代，他们正在寻找合适的退休居所，其他人则是希望成为业主而一朝致富。在这些购房交易助长了近期房产市场强劲升势的同时，它们也可能带来更大的动荡。这是因为，第二套房产和以出租为目的的物业与第一套住宅大有不同，如果房主失去信心，或者找不到合适的租户，马上就会把房子卖掉。
10. 关注评分
以汽车质量调查而著称的咨询和研究机构J.D. Power & Associates也对新屋购买群体展开调查。这项调查始于1997年，现在已经涵盖了30个大都会地区。
在调查中表现不错的公司，例如Pulte Homes Inc.和Centex Corp.等，都以此自夸。这也迫使其他同行竞相争取评分。
但是，地产行业的一大难题是，完成一个地产开发项目要依靠一系列的分包商，从地基浇筑、供热管道安装，直到屋顶射钉，都是由分包商完成的。这就很难保证一个项目各方面都能达标。Hovnanian Enterprises正在某些市场尝试让自己的员工承担更多工作，来提高项目的一致和连贯性。
KB Home的首席执行长卡拉茨(Bruce Karatz)说，该公司的客户沟通得分在调查结果中尤其出色，例如提前通知客户大概的住宅完工时间。他说，如果KB推迟交房超过30天，“很多客户永远都不会原谅我们。”
