1 Comment

I question that the "2000s Housing Bubble Was Greatly Exaggerated".

Yes, there were significant differences between regions. But one of those differences was that (as I recall from a study a few years back - no I don't have a cite) in some markets there appears to have been massive speculation. If memory serves, there were a handful of markets in which some significant percentage (maybe over 30%?) of mortgages were being written for houses that were not the owner's primary residence.

If you look at the Shiller graph from the article (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/iS7uS8CpyUiqd_5I2CGHFIVDIK-tvGfsqTpxHqH5R91k_BC9nTvKnma1cidE1nqZ6bwpXum9crI-6i1lMf9EfglMYLtkrOm4KNCS6S55bAi4t7VpxBpWKNYPtF0hUVMzyNmJzdJl), you see that, in the beginning - from 1997 until 2002 or so - the housing market was just recovering to the level of the previous high. But after reaching that level, housing prices continued to rise and rise, to what were extraordinary levels, given the state of the housing market.

What else happened starting in the early 2000s? Those of us who were around will remember that there was a huge push to get into the housing market. There were articles, seminars, and entire television programs dedicated to getting rich by flipping houses. This period also saw the rise of unscrupulous mortgage brokers, particularly in low-income neighbourhoods, who would happily write loans that the buyers could never hope to pay off - unless they could sell off later at a higher price. While the previous owners of these properties were able to cash out at inflated sale prices.

Perhaps one could say that New York, San Francisco, and a handful of other booming regions were not in a bubble, but they are hardly the whole of the USA.

Expand full comment