The Riskiest Housing Markets In America [Do you live anywhere near these cities?]

Zero Hedge ^ | 06/30/2014 | Tyler Durden

[SeekAndFind]

As homeownership rates tumble, perhaps it is not just the stagnation of income or piling up of 'other debts' disabling any organic buying frenzy; perhaps, as Bloomberg breaks down, it is the realization that real-estate is nothing less than another boom-bust roller-coaster ride. ??When so much wealth is tied up in one asset, the risk -- or stability -- of a local market can mean a lot to a homeowner and Bloomberg has quantified the 'riskiest' (and most stable) home markets in America... not Vegas, not Phoenix, and not LA...

 

Full Breakdown here

 

And the stablest real estate markets?

5. Raleigh, North Carolina
Risk of loss: 9%
Worst year: -5% (July 1981 - June 1982)

4. Nashville, Tennessee
Risk of loss: 9%
Worst year: -4% (July 2010 - June 2011)

3. Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky
Risk of loss: 3%
Worst year: -3% (April 1981 - March 1982)

2. Pittsburgh
Risk of loss: 0%
Worst year: -7% (July 1980 - June 1981)

1. Buffalo, New York
Risk of loss: 0%
Worst year: -4% (July 1994 - June 1995)

??Methodology: For each of the 50 largest housing markets, Zillow.com analyzed average home prices over 117 rolling five-year periods since 1979, as far back as reliable data go. The “risk of loss” is the percentage of those periods that created negative returns for homeowners. In the case of ties between markets, those with the bigger drop in their worst years were ranked as riskier.

[grania]

What do the numbers in the right hand column represent? And when you say “risk of loss” is 9% somewhere, what does that mean?

[The Sons of Liberty]

As long as the commie bastard in the white hut is in control, ANY economic scenario or financial investment will be risky.

[MHGinTN]

Wonder how Dalton, GA stacks up?

[RWGinger]

The top cities did not surprise me but Dallas /fort Worth did
Our appreciation of home values as pretty tame during the wild ride.
and our population growth has been in top 10 in nation for years. We have companies relocating here every moth * Toyota USA is bringing over 5 K pretty well paid people here this and next year)
right now we don’t have enough homes on the market and still the appreciation % is not huge
so I wonder what the risk is

[Jeff Chandler]

1. Buffalo, New York
Risk of loss: 0%
Worst year: -4% (July 1994 - June 1995)

****************************************

Risk of loss: 0%, because prices are as low as they will ever be.

[Tax-chick]

The “risk of loss” is the percentage of those periods that created negative returns for homeowners.

From 1979 on, the "periods" are rolling five-year increments, which means 1979-1984, then 1980-1985, 1981-1986, etc.

In each of those periods, they calculated the likelihood of loss (aggregate for the area) on a house sale. So, "9% risk of loss in Raleigh" means that the average sale was at a loss in 9% of the periods.

It's just a snapshot stat. You and I might own similar houses side-by-side, but I bought mine in 1970 and you bought yours in 2012. I have a better chance of selling mine for a gain, today, than you do!

[G Larry]

The 5 “most stable” are there for a reason.

The bottom fell out a long time ago and they haven’t recovered.

We’ll hang on to what we have in the 11th “most risky” market.....

[grania]

Does it represent how much of the value of the house was lost?

I'm curious because in places such as Cleveland, a lot of houses lost value, but most not very much. That's because there was never a housing bubble here. The only exception is inner city neighborhoods that self-destructed.

[peteyd]

People in the past, such as my parents,wanted a home ,pay it off and live there for the rest of their lives.
A home is no longer used for that purpose.

[Finny]

What about the risk of GAIN?

Risk is the price you pay for opportunity. Sorry, but you risk GAINING a lot more on a property in San Diego or L.A. (live there for awhile and you'll see why -- they have the world's most ideal climate and vibrant economies and kaleidoscopic professional opportunities in spite of California government) than you would on a piece of property in Raleigh North Carolina or Pittsburth.

Yeeeesh.

[lurk]

We take a 2 mile walk every night, in a part of the country with economic growth, conservative politics and relatively low unemployment. Just along the route of our walk we can identify at least 8 abandoned homes with no realty sign in the yard. In the next town 4 miles away, we have seen dozens more as we drive around. The homes tend to be fixer uppers.

This tells me there are a whole bunch of folks who don’t have the cash to even get their toe in the housing market, creating a glut of inventory.

[Tax-chick]

It just says “created negative returns for homeowners,” without detailing (in the excerpt ;-) exactly what that means. It could mean they looked at each transaction, identified the gain/loss, and then averaged the amounts. That would take into account the magnitude: fewer large losses and more small gains could still give you a “net loss” period.

On the other hand, they could have looked at each transaction, marked it (+) or (-), and chosen the direction with most transactions. That could not recognize the amounts of gains/losses.

My immediate area had a similar result to what you describe in Cleveland over the last decade: a period of a few years in which there were modest losses as a percentage of total price.

[GeronL]

Dallas-FW?

[GeronL]

Detroit must be really really stable

[Tax-chick]

Risk is the price you pay for opportunity.

Or, as they taught us in Principles of Finance, "Risk is the uncertainty of an outcome." This article just happens to have reduced that to "risk of loss," just as a conservative mutual fund will emphasize the "risk of losing your capital" (small) rather than the "risk of a really high return" (also small) .

A homebuyer can make his own choices regarding his risk-tolerance. It's perfectly reasonable to control your downside risk, if you can't afford a loss, even if that means limiting your upside potential.

[lostboy61]

Nothing happens in Dalton GA. its just is.

[lacrew]

Add to it any city near a military base. A new drawdown is coming, and the base personnel reductions are staggering.

[newnhdad]

I would have to say all of New England is risky. We lost close to 40% on our house when we sold because the market was so inflated. We should have just rented.

[Nervous Tick]

>> What do the numbers in the right hand column represent? And when you say “risk of loss” is 9% somewhere, what does that mean?

They’re “Zillow numbers”. Zillow numbers don’t mean squat.