Tag Archives: American Housing Survey

CR: Lawler: How Much Has the Single Family Housing Market Shifted to Rentals (in numbers)?

Lawler: How Much Has the Single Family Housing Market Shifted to Rentals (in numbers)?

by Bill McBride on 4/24/2013

From economist Tom Lawler:

While good, reliable, consistent, and timely government data on the housing stock and housing tenure do not exist, the limited data available suggest that over the last few years (1) there has been a sizable increase in the number of SF housing units occupied by renters; (2) a decent-sized decline in the number of SF housing units occupied by owners; and (3) this trend began several years ago, and several years before widely-publicized “institutional” investor buying emerged.

Estimates of the SHARE of SF housing units occupied by owners vs. renters are available from the American Community Survey annually from 2006 through 2011 and biennially from the American Housing Survey through 2011, and “imprecise” estimates of the owner vs. renter share of “one-unit” structures can be derived from the detailed tables of the Housing Vacancy Survey through 2012 – though rental and homeowner vacancy rates for “one-unit” structures in the HVS include not just SF detached and attached homes but also manufactured/mobile homes. All three surveys show a substantial increase in the share of SF/one-units occupied homes occupied by renters from 2007 to 2011, and the HVS data show a continued share increase in 2012. Both the AHS and the HVS, however, appear to overstated significantly overall homeownership rates (based on a comparison to decennial Census results), while the ACS homeownership rates seem more consistent with decennial Census data. As such, I believe the ACS data on the renter share of the SF housing market is superior to the AHS and HVS data.

Rental Share Single Family Housing Market Click on graph for larger image.

Note: The estimate for 2012 is based on the 2012 vs. 2011 change in the HVS estimate of the renter share of occupied “one-unit” structures.

Translating the ACS share data to numbers, however, requires a little work. First, the numbers for households in the annual ACS results are “benchmarked” to the latest available housing stock estimate for that year, and there have been significant upward revisions in housing stock estimates. Second, the latest available “official” housing stock estimates do not incorporate post-Census analyses of the estimated “undercount” of housing units in the “official” Census numbers. And finally, the ACS appears to overstate the overall housing vacancy rate, though by less than the HVS or AHS. Unfortunately, adjusted for this last factor is difficult, since the degree of the vacancy rate “overstatement” is only available for 2010. As such, I only adjusted the ACS estimates for more reasonable estimates of the housing stock (incorporating the Census 2000 HUCS and the Census 2010 CCM).

Making this adjustment, and using estimates for the 2012 ACS data based on HVS results, it would appear that from 2007 to 2012 the number of SF detached and attached homes that were occupied by renters increased by about 2.6 million, while the number of SF detached and attached homes that were occupied by owners declined by about 1.3 million. The largest increase in both the number and the share of renter-occupied SF homes appears to have been in 2009.

Since “active” investor buying of SF homes that were then rented out has been going on for many years, why has the media only recently begun to focus intently on this “trend? First, investor buying in earlier years occurred when for-sale inventories (and REO inventories) and the pace of foreclosure were high, the economy in general and labor markets in particular were extremely weak, and there were no signs either of a housing “recovery” or improving home prices. Second, last year a number of large institutional firms very publicly announced plans to ramp up purchases of SF homes as rental properties. Third, their ramped-up buying came when overall inventories of existing home for sale, and especially “distressed”/REO properties for sale, had fallen sharply, as well as when an improved economy and record-low mortgage rates were producing a modest increase in potential demand from folks wanting to buy a home to live in. (Folks love anecdotal stories about how investors are “out-bidding” or “crowding out” first-time home buyers!)

And finally, their (and other) aggressive buying in the face of sharply lower inventories (large institutional investors appear to have lower “hurdle rates” than “traditional” investors) has helped fuel a significant recovery in home prices in many parts of the country (oh my, more “de-stickification!”)

All-Cash Share of Home Sales (Yearly Totals)
Phoenix Tucson California* Florida SF Florida C/TH Knoxville Omaha
2007 11.6% 12.6% 10.3% N/A N/A 12.4% N/A
2008 12.6% 18.8% 18.7% 25.5% 43.6% 15.2% 12.1%
2009 37.2% 23.9% 26.3% 36.8% 64.0% 17.8% 11.8%
2010 41.8% 28.3% 28.0% 42.3% 73.2% 22.1% 16.7%
2011 46.9% 34.6% 30.4% 45.5% 76.6% 24.5% 20.2%
2012 46.0% 34.4% 32.6% 45.7% 75.6% 26.6% 17.6%
*Derived from Dataquick chart; new and resale homes based on property records, all others MLS based.

In 2010 there were 141,722 MLS-based home sales (SF and C/TH) in Florida that were all-cash transactions, while there were 79,779 foreclosure sales and 53,780 short sales. In 2012 there were 54,607 foreclosure sales and 63,250 short sales (or 117,867 “distressed” sales, down 15,692 from 2010), but all-cash transactions increased by 28,647 to 170,369.

From 2009 to 2012 MLS-based home sales in Florida increased by 24.2%. All-cash transactions increased by 54.1%, while mortgage-financed transactions were very slightly LOWER in 2012 compared to 2009.

Read more at http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/04/lawler-how-much-has-single-family.html#eoU14525vQZTblwA.99

Leave a comment

Filed under Home Sales, Housing

JCHS: Nonprofits Play Key Role in Repairing U.S. Homes

Nonprofits Play Key Role in Repairing U.S. Homes

Private sector spending on improvements and repairs to U.S. homes is approximately $300 billion a year. Yet as a new Joint Center working paper shows, each year nonprofit organizations and public agencies are also investing resources into the rehabilitation and repair of the homes of America’s most vulnerable households—including the elderly, disabled, and those with low-incomes—who might not otherwise be physically or financially able to undertake critical home remodeling and repair projects themselves. Major nonprofits such as Rebuilding TogetherHabitat for Humanity,Enterprise Community Partners, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, and NeighborWorks America, as well as thousands of local community development organizations across the country, are filling a significant and growing need, largely unmet by the private sector, by investing considerable resources—financial, technical, and direct provision of services—to make homes safer, healthier, more energy efficient, and more accessible for disadvantaged households.The recent foreclosure crisis and sluggish economy undermined years of efforts to stabilize and improve distressed neighborhoods in cities across the country, only adding to the need for nonprofit and public sector involvement. Until this past cycle, housing inadequacy—a measure of the physical condition of housing units—had been on the decline in the United States, largely due to the success of govern­ment housing policies and the growing affluence of the pop­ulation. Since the housing market bust, however, this trend has reversed with the number of moderately or severely inadequate homes increasing by 7% between 2007 and 2011 to 2.4 million units. Certainly the severe housing and economic downturn had a measurable impact on the quality of the nation’s housing.While a comprehensive data source of home rehabilitation and repair activity by nonprofits and public agencies does not exist, this new Joint Center working paper provides some insight into the topic. Rebuilding Together, one of the nonprofits in the study, provides critical home rehabilitation and modification services to low-income homeowners through its extensive network of local affiliates. A member of the Joint Center’s Remodeling Futures Steering Committee, the organization provided support for an affiliate and homeowner survey that collected data on the various types of projects undertaken by their affiliates, as well as demographic and socioeconomic information about the homeowners served and their experience partnering with Rebuilding Together.

Recent spending on home repairs and replacements, as reported by participating households, suggests that many of the homes worked on by Rebuilding Together have seen significant under-investment over the years. While the average American homeowner spent $3,000 on home improvements and repairs in 2011, according to Joint Center analysis of the American Housing Survey, almost two-thirds of Rebuilding Together program participants reported having spent less than $500 on average in the past year—fully 80% less than the typical homeowner in the U.S. Indeed, according to estimates developed by Rebuilding Together affiliates and the Joint Center’s Remodeling Futures Program, the homes serviced by Rebuilding Together were so in need after years of deferred maintenance, that the average value of the rehabilitation and repair projects undertaken by Rebuilding Together was in excess of $6,000 per home, or twice the annual amount spent by the typical homeowner in the U.S.

Home improvement expenditures under the Rebuilding Together program in 2011 were heavily oriented toward exterior replacements and kitchen and bath improvements—projects that would produce the greatest gains in key program objectives such as health and safety concerns, accessibility, and savings in energy use. Typical projects included additions or replacements of steps, ramps, railings, grab bars, windows and doors, roofing, insulation, energy-saving appliances, as well as painting and plumbing and electrical repairs. In the end, Rebuilding Together participants reported significant improvements in health and safety concerns, improvements in accessibility, and energy use savings as a result of nonprofit involvement. 

Source: 2011 Harvard JCHS-Rebuilding Together Household Survey


While a more precise estimate is unavailable, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year by nonprofits such as Rebuilding Together, community organizations, and public agencies. Their contributions not only improve conditions for residents, they also help preserve badly-needed affordable housing opportunities, stabilize and revitalize deteriorating neighborhoods—of special importance in recent years—and encourage neighborhood stability by helping long-term residents of the community to remain safely in their homes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Housing, JCHS