市场出版物

U.S. 住房- Déjà似曾相识?

看了下面这张图表后,我们可以看到美国的经济状况.S. housing prices, can there be any doubt that we have another housing bubble?

图1. 通用版的美国.S. 房价表
美国全国房价指数
来源:罗伯特•希勒(Robert Shiller)

对此,我们说“别急,我的朋友!” In our writing on various financial topics, we come across a similar pattern:

  1. 媒体大肆渲染“危机”或“机遇”.”
  2. As a result, investors/consumers pay heed to media’s “advice.”
  3. 这样一来,投资者/消费者的处境就更糟了.

最近的媒体事件(在很多时候)是对另一个房地产泡沫和/或房地产崩溃的报道. 在谷歌上快速搜索一下“房地产泡沫”会发现:

Something to which we have alluded bears repeating: the financial media are not interested in giving you facts; Rather, 他们有兴趣把故事卖给你. 这, 当然, by no means dissuades them from publishing contradictory pieces Case in point, 彭博社:

So, in page one of a Google search, we have (in no particular order):

  1. 房地产泡沫正在逼近.
  2. 房地产泡沫已经出现.
  3. 房地产市场即将崩溃.
  4. 房地产崩盘已经来临.

Like the financial media, we share a goal of being informative. 然而, 不像金融媒体, 我们力求正确, which is always easy retrospectively and not so easy prospectively. 那么,我们对这种情况有什么看法?

虽然我们认识到,自去年夏天以来,价格的大幅上涨超过了历史上的先例, 我们不认为存在泡沫. 此外, 我们建议价格上涨, 经过一段时间的冷却, are likely to continue moving higher in the coming years.

我们的论文是一个三条腿的凳子:

  1. current prices do not constitute a bubble – perception is not reality,
  2. 泡沫心态尚未普遍存在,而且
  3. fundamentals justify both price appreciation to date and further price gains looking forward.

In this piece, we will address the first two legs of the stool. Stay tuned for 第2部分, in which we will address the third leg.

目前的价格并不构成泡沫.

近因效应”(或近期偏差), 被定义为相信近期事件会再次发生, 对相对罕见的事件给予不相称的重视是一种常见的认知错误吗. In the context of the current housing bubble panic, this is relevant for two reasons. 第一个, 大规模地, 一些人认为过去9个月房价上涨, 如Case-Shiller全国房价指数所示, 因为他们经历了2009年引发全球金融危机的房地产泡沫. 第二个, 小规模地, 另一些人则根据过去9个月的数据,认为房价上涨的趋势将继续下去. 尽管这些近因偏差的应用是不同的, they both lead to what we believe are erroneous conclusions.

Exceeding Prices Found from a Bubble Peak Does Not Indicate a Bubble.

我们读到的一个常见说法是,现在的房价甚至比全球金融危机之前的房地产泡沫时期还要高. 对此,我们会说,这真是令人惊讶? 观察最近的另一个泡沫可以帮助我们了解泡沫破裂后价格恢复所需的时间,以及价格达到或超过之前的峰值并不一定意味着泡沫.

例如, let’s compare the housing price trajectory to the 2000 dotcom (i.e.,纳斯达克100)泡沫(图2).纳斯达克100指数在泡沫的最后一年上涨了127%,然后在约2年的时间里下跌了79%.5年. The peak reached at the height of the bubble was regained in just over 15年.

图2. 纳斯达克100指数泡沫, 哪个比房地产泡沫大得多, 花了15年才达到之前的高点.
纳斯达克1999 - 2015
资料来源:FactSet和Balentine

The 2002-2006 housing bubble was much smaller than the NASDAQ bubble; housing prices rose 42% over a three year period rather than 127% in one year. If we consider that it took NASDAQ 14 years to reach its previous high after the bubble, it is reasonable to expect that 15 ½ years after the housing bubble peak in March 2006, 价格将高于之前的高点.

Using the Wrong Type of Chart Can Lead to Misleading Conclusions.

经济学家用图表来解释商品价格和其他因素之间的关系, such as time in an effort to discern patterns that can help them predict market outcomes.

在图1中,我们绘制了月与. 以房价的方式来看,房价已经改变,并可能继续改变,随着时间的推移. 这是一个算术关系的例子, 假设每个单位, 或者代表月份+价格的点, 以一定百分比的比率变化. 换句话说, the percent change between unit values is consistent. 在这种情况下, the percent change between months and prices is assumed to be equidistant, which you can tell by the way the y axis plots price values rather than percentages. Once we have plotted the values, we can draw a trend line using the slope of the graph. 我们可以用趋势线来预测未来的数值.

并不是所有数据点之间的关系都能精确地用算术表示出来,因为值之间的百分比变化是不一致的. 在这些情况下,我们必须使用一种不同的图表来描绘它们之间的关系. Logarithmic charts use the percentage of change to plot data points, so, 规模价格定位的距离并不相等. 在这种情况下, the y axis plots percentages rather than prices and the x axis plots months.

The reason this is important is because 图1 is an arithmetic chart; it assumes that percent change is consistent. It is useful to look at the price of houses over time; 然而, because it does not reflect the different percent of change between prices, it distorts the most recent price gains at the expense of earlier price gains.

例如, 假设从60到80的变化百分比等于从180到240的变化百分比, 33%, 然而在算术图上180到240的距离比60到80的距离大. 这是一种误导,因为它让人觉得从180到240的增幅要大得多. 当我们在对数图上分析数据时, 哪个代表数据点之间变化的百分比, 当我们加入更多的数据, 追溯到1968年, 我们可以看到更准确的房价增长率图(图3).

图3. 对美国更准确的描述.S. 房屋价格图,包括规模和持续时间.
美国全国房价指数
来源:罗伯特•希勒(Robert Shiller)

从这个角度来看, the chart looks less like a bubble and more like a consistent upward trend, which can be seen even more effectively in 图4 when we insert a trendline.

图4. 包括一个趋势线完成了图片.
美国全国房价指数与趋势线
资料来源:Robert Shiller和Balentine

趋势线与实际数据有96%的相关性,表明尽管目前的价格高于2006年的峰值, 许多人会惊讶地发现,根据潜在趋势,价格低于预期水平. 换句话说, 换句话说, the 50+ year trendline suggests housing prices should be higher than they are now.

让我们从稍微不同的角度来看这个问题. 图4演示了U.S. home prices have been above and below trend expectations. But it’s hard to get a precise grasp for how much deviation from trend there is. 所有的资产市场都会偏离其趋势. 如果这些偏差相对较小,那就是市场涨落的正常过程. If, 然而, 这种偏差是惊人的, 那么,这就是泡沫(或者, 在看跌的情况下, 这是矫枉过正的标志). 再一次, 比较的目的, 让我们从纳斯达克100指数开始,看看巨大的泡沫偏离是什么样子的(图5).

图5. 纳斯达克100指数泡沫 in 2000 demonstrated a massive trend deviation.
偏离趋势线的百分比
资料来源:FactSet和Balentine

在这里,我们可以看到一个明显的偏离趋势,远高于任何合理或符合历史标准的东西. Now, let us take a look at the housing market 追溯到1968年.

图6. Though not as egregious as the NASDAQ, housing prices were a bubble in their own right.
Though not as egregious as the NASDAQ, housing prices were a bubble in their own right
资料来源:Robert Shiller和Balentine

我马上想到了两个结论:1)房价泡沫没有互联网泡沫那么大, and 2) housing prices still remain well below the trend, even with the recent coronavirus-induced spike (which will be addressed later).

泡沫心态尚未普遍存在.

Zooming out for a moment, defining a general market bubble is trickier than it would seem. All industries are going to have their fair share of booms and busts, so what makes these different from the idea of a bubble?
Empirical research of media publications shows more opinions at this time calling housing a bubble than not a bubble; this is not a bubble mentality; rather this is a wall of worry that will provide the opportunity for prices to ascend higher, 不落低.

这是一个关键点——只有在许多怀疑者认输、承认失败之后,泡沫才会真正形成. There are the classic, oft-quoted 1600s tulip mania, 1700s South Sea Company, 1920s U.S. 股票市场, 1980年代日本经济, 20世纪90年代的网络股票市场, 以及2000年代的全球住房, 所有这些都有一个关键的原则:
大多数投资者都赞同大众心理,认为“新范式”在事实面前是有道理的, thereby relegating the skeptics and contrarians to a relatively small subset.

Now, this is not to suggest that there all deviations from trend are a problem. 所有的资产市场都会偏离其趋势, providing shorter-term traders opportunities to buy low and sell high around the trends. The problem is where a normal deviation becomes a feedback loop, where price appreciation begets further price appreciation. 这种动态是由广泛的乐观情绪驱动的,只要有“更大的傻瓜”把股票卖给谁,价格就会超过由基本面或典型的供需规律支撑的价值. 换句话说, 理性的人会忽略他们不一定相信的估值,只要他们相信有人会以更高的价格购买它.

当然, market participants don’t view themselves as paying up; rather, the rationalizations of “it’s different this time” pervade. 上述的人类倾向会导致一个相当可预测的结果:在一个想法站稳脚跟,产品形成市场之后, people believe both that they are among the few who have spotted the trend early, and that they will be smart enough to pull out at the right time. 当然, 这种情况会一直持续下去,直到买家的池子干涸,而“最大的傻瓜”只能背黑锅了. 在此之前不久, 财经媒体和主流媒体都把这件事作为头条新闻. 图7中的例子说明了这一点, 2005年6月登上《博天堂注册》杂志封面, 仅在价格见顶前九个月:

图7. When it hits the magazine covers, generally the end is near
时代杂志封面-家,甜蜜的家
来源:《博天堂注册》杂志

Suffice it to say that such a bubble mentality is far from ubiquitous today. 事实上, we would posit quite the opposite; people are looking for any reason to scoff and call for a bubble as asset prices rise.

We will delve into this dynamic more in 第2部分 of this blog, 除了观察:1)凳子的第三条腿——基本面证明了迄今为止的价格上涨和未来的价格上涨是合理的, 2)泡沫发生的原因, 这也是为什么我们认为泡沫预测者普遍出局的原因, 3)从这里去哪里找房子.

博天堂注册

寻求指导管理您的博天堂注册地址? 巴伦丁致力于为客户提供实现其目标所需的教育和建议.