Latest Posts:
Tag

housing

Browsing
In Research & Trends

Housing Starts Decline Amid Economic Uncertainty

No Comments


Constrained housing affordability conditions due to elevated interest rates, rising construction costs and labor shortages led to a reduction in housing production in March.

Overall housing starts decreased 11.4% in March to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.32 million units, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The March reading of 1.32 million starts is the number of housing units builders would begin if development kept this pace for the next 12 months. Within this overall number, single-family starts decreased 14.2% to a 940,000 seasonally adjusted annual rate over the month and are down 9.7% compared to March 2024. On a year-to-date basis, single-family starts are down 5.6%. The three-month moving average (a useful gauge given recent volatility) is down to 1.01 million units, as charted below.

The multifamily sector, which includes apartment buildings and condos, decreased 3.5% to an annualized 384,000 pace. The three-month moving average for multifamily construction has trended upward to a 381,000-unit annual rate. On a year-over-year basis, multifamily construction is up 48.8%.

On a regional and year-to-date basis, combined single-family and multifamily starts were 10.6% higher in the West, 8.6% higher in the Northeast, 3.3% higher in the Midwest, and 8.5% lower in the South.

The total number of single-family homes and apartments under construction was 1.4 million in March. This is the lowest total since July 2021. Total housing units now under construction are 15.2% lower than a year ago. Single-family units under construction fell to a count of 632,000—down 8.7% compared to a year ago. The number of multifamily units under construction has fallen to 759,000 units. This is down 20.0% compared to a year ago.

On a 3-month moving average basis, there are currently 1.5 apartments completing construction for every one that is beginning construction. While apartment construction starts are down, the number of completed units entering the market is rising due to prior elevated construction levels. Year-to-date, the pace of completions for apartments in buildings with five or more units is down 3.5% in 2025 compared to 2024. An elevated pace of completions in 2025 for multifamily construction will place some downward pressure on rent growth.

Overall permits increased 1.6% to a 1.48-million-unit annualized rate in March. Single-family permits decreased 2.0% to a 978,000-unit rate. Multifamily permits increased 9.3% to a 504,000 pace.

Looking at regional permit data on a year-to-date basis, permits were 4.7% higher in the Midwest, 0.4% higher in the South, 8.8% lower in the West and 24.7% lower in the Northeast.

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .

Read More
By
In Research & Trends

Builder Confidence Levels Indicate Slow Start for Spring Housing Season

No Comments


Growing economic uncertainty stemming from tariff concerns and elevated building material costs kept builder sentiment in negative territory in April, despite a modest bump in confidence likely due to a slight retreat in mortgage interest rates in recent weeks.

Builder confidence in the market for newly built single-family homes was 40 in April, edging up one point from March, according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI).

The March dip in mortgage rates may have stimulated some sales activity in recent weeks. However, builders have expressed growing uncertainty over market conditions as tariffs have increased price volatility for building materials at a time when the industry continues to grapple with labor shortages and a lack of buildable lots.

Policy uncertainty is making it difficult for builders to accurately price homes and make critical business decisions. The April HMI data indicates that the tariff cost effect is already taking hold, with the majority of builders reporting cost increases on building materials due to tariffs.

When asked about the impact of tariffs on their business, 60% of builders reported their suppliers have already increased or announced increases of material prices due to tariffs. On average, suppliers have increased their prices by 6.3% in response to announced, enacted, or expected tariffs. This means builders estimate a typical cost effect from recent tariff actions at $10,900 per home.

The latest HMI survey also revealed that 29% of builders cut home prices in April, unchanged from March. Meanwhile, the average price reduction was 5% in April, the same rate as the previous month. The use of sales incentives was 61% in April, up from 59% in March.

Derived from a monthly survey that NAHB has been conducting for more than 35 years, the NAHB/Wells Fargo HMI gauges builder perceptions of current single-family home sales and sales expectations for the next six months as “good,” “fair” or “poor.” The survey also asks builders to rate traffic of prospective buyers as “high to very high,” “average” or “low to very low.” Scores for each component are then used to calculate a seasonally adjusted index where any number over 50 indicates that more builders view conditions as good than poor.

The HMI index gauging current sales conditions rose two points in April to a level of 45. The gauge charting traffic of prospective buyers increased one point to 25 while the component measuring sales expectations in the next six months fell four points to 43.

Looking at the three-month moving averages for regional HMI scores, the Northeast fell seven points in April to 47, the Midwest moved one point lower to 41, the South dropped three points to 39 and the West posted a two-point decline to 35.

The HMI tables can be found at nahb.org/hmi.

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .

Read More
By
In Research & Trends

Manufactured Homes: An Alternative Means of Housing Supply

No Comments


Manufactured homes play a measurable role in the U.S. housing market by providing an affordable supply option for millions of households. According to the American Housing Survey (AHS), there are 7.2 million occupied manufactured homes in the U.S., representing 5.4% of total occupied housing and a source of affordable housing, in particular, for rural and lower income households.

Often thought of as synonymous to “mobile homes” or “trailers”, manufactured homes are a specific type of factory-built housing that adheres to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards code. To qualify, a manufactured home must be a “movable dwelling, 8 feet or more wide and 40 feet or more long”, constructed on a permanent chassis.

The East South Central division (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee) have the highest concentration of manufactured homes, representing 9.3% of total occupied housing. The Mountain region follows with 8.5%, while the South Atlantic region holds 7.7%.

The 1990s saw a surge in manufactured home shipments, peaking in 1998. During this period, manufactured homes constituted 17% to 24% of new single-family homes.  However, shipments declined in the early 2000s, coinciding with a rapid increase in site-built housing construction leading up to the 2008 housing crisis. Since then, manufactured homes have stabilized at around 9% to 10% of new housing.

Characteristics of the 2023 Manufactured Home Stock

Given that most manufactured homes were produced in the 1990s, a significant portion of the existing manufactured home stock — approximately 72.2% — was built before 2000. Consequently, 7.7% of these homes are classified as inadequate compared to 5% of all homes nationwide. About 2% are considered severely inadequate and exhibit “major deficiencies, such as exposed wiring, lack of electricity, missing hot or cold running water, or the absence of heating or cooling systems”. However, with proper maintenance, manufactured homes can be as durable as site-built homes.

Currently, 57% of the occupied manufactured homes stock are single-section units, while 43% are multi-sections, according to the AHS. Single-section homes are manufactured homes that can be transported from factory to placement in a single piece while multi-sections are transported in multiple pieces and are joined on site. However, data from the Census show that newer shipments indicate a shift toward multi-section homes.

Most single-section homes are less than 1,000 square feet and contain five total rooms in the house — typically two bedrooms and three bathrooms. In contrast, multi-section homes usually range from 1,000 to 2,000 square feet and have six rooms, comprising three bedrooms and three bathrooms.

Demographics of Manufactured Homes Residents

Manufactured homes serve as a crucial housing option, particularly for those living in rural or non-metro areas. AHS data highlight a stark contrast between the locations of single-family and manufactured home residents. While most manufactured home residents (53%) live in rural areas, single-family residents are mostly concentrated (67%) in urbanized areas — defined as territories with a population of 50,000 or more. In comparison, only 33% of manufactured home residents reside in urbanized areas. Residents of both manufactured and single-family homes are less common in urban clusters — areas with populations between 2,500 and 50,000 — comprising just 13% and 9%, respectively.

The median age of a manufactured home householder is 55, the same as single-family householders. However, most manufactured home householders (37.8%) have an education attainment level of high school completion compared to single-family householders whose largest group (24.8%) have completed a bachelor’s degree.

Income disparities are also significant. The median household income for manufactured home residents is $40,000, far below the $85,000 median income for single-family householders. The gap widens among homeowners, with manufactured homeowners earning a median of $41,500 versus $93,000 for single-family homeowners.

Household CharacteristicManufactured Homes HouseholdSingle-Family HouseholdAge (Median)5555Majority Education Attainment LevelHigh school or equivalency (37.8%)Bachelor’s degree (24.8%)Annual Household Income (Median)$40,000$85,000Annual Household Income of Homeowners (Median)$41,500$93,000Sources: 2023 American Housing Survey (AHS) and NAHB analysis.

Cost of Buying and Owning Manufactured Homes

One of the key advantages of manufactured homes is affordability. The average cost per square foot for a new manufactured home in 2023 was $86.62, compared to $165.94 for a site-built home (excluding land costs) — a difference of $79.32 per square foot. This difference in cost has only grown over the decade from $51.84 per square foot in 2014. For a 1,500-square-foot home, this translates to a savings of approximately $118,980, and this savings has grown despite the average cost of manufactured homes increasing at a higher growth rate of 7.4% CAGR versus 6.1% CAGR for new single-family homes.

Owning a manufactured home is also more affordable in total housing cost, which includes mortgage payments, insurance, taxes, utilities and lot rent. According to the AHS, owners of a single-section manufactured home have a median total monthly housing cost of $563, while the cost for a multi-section home is $805. In contrast, the median monthly cost of owning a single-family home is $1,410.

Despite the lower costs associated with manufactured homes, affordability remains a challenge for many owners. Among single-section manufactured homeowners, 36.6% are considered cost-burdened, meaning they spend 30% or more of their income on housing. This is slightly higher than the 28.4% of multi-section manufactured homeowners and the 27.6% of single-family homeowners facing similar financial strain. This disparity underscores the reality that even though manufactured homes are a more affordable option, lower-income households are still disproportionately burdened by housing costs.

Manufactured Home Pricing

Data on manufactured home appreciation is limited. However, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) publishes a quarterly house price index for manufactured homes. Comparing the indices for manufactured and site-built homes, manufactured homes have closely followed the appreciation trends of their site-built counterparts. Between the first quarter of 2000 and the last quarter of 2024, the index value for manufactured homes increased by a cumulative 203.7%, slightly surpassing the 200.2% increase for site-built homes. This indicates that the manufactured home markets face much of the same demand opportunities and supply challenges of the broader housing market.

It is important to note that this data reflects only manufactured homes financed through conventional mortgages as real property, acquired by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises). In contrast, the majority of new manufactured homes are titled as personal property, which is not eligible for conventional mortgage financing because the Enterprises do not acquire chattel loans. Nonetheless, it is common for manufactured homes to be placed on private land even though the unit is under a personal property title — a title that applies to movable assets, such as vehicles, tools or equipment, and furniture, whereas a real estate property title includes land and any structures permanently attached to it.

Despite this distinction, there has been a steady increase in the share of manufactured homes titled as real estate. Since 2014, the percentage of real estate-titled manufactured homes has grown from 13% to 20% in 2023, indicating a positive trend toward greater financial recognition and stability for these homes.

Zoning Restrictions and the Future of Manufactured Homes

Manufactured homes provide a cost-effective housing solution, particularly in rural areas where the transportation and material costs for site-built homes can be significantly higher. However, restrictive zoning laws often limit their placement in urban areas. Regulations such as bans on manufactured home communities and large lot size requirements can substantially increase costs, making it difficult to establish manufactured housing in cities. Reducing these zoning barriers could not only expand affordable housing options in high-cost urban areas but also improve access to essential services such as healthcare and economic opportunities for lower-income communities.

A successful example of zoning reform comes from Jackson, Mississippi, where city officials partnered with the Mississippi Manufactured Housing Association (MMHA) to launch a pilot program highlighting the potential of prefabricated and manufactured homes as affordable housing solutions. As part of the initiative, the city revised its zoning regulations to distinguish manufactured and modular housing from pre-1976 “mobile homes,” which had long been banned. Previously, manufactured homes were classified under the same category, restricting their placement. The new ordinance now permits manufactured housing within city limits, albeit with a discretionary use permit, paving the way for greater affordability and accessibility in urban housing.

Conclusion

Manufactured homes make up only 5% of the total housing stock but provide an alternative form of housing that meets the needs of various households, particularly in rural areas. Although they offer a lower-cost option compared with site-built homes, factors such as an aging housing stock, financing limitations and zoning restrictions could influence their accessibility and long-term viability.

Trends such as the increasing prevalence of multi-section homes and a growing share of units titled as real estate suggest a gradual shift in consumer preferences toward housing options that more closely resemble site-built homes in size, functionality and financing. As housing affordability remains a key concern, manufactured homes continue to play a role as an affordable supply in the broader housing landscape, and expanding their use through education, innovation and zoning reform could improve access to cost-effective housing.

Footnotes:

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .

Read More
By
In Research & Trends

Single-Family Housing Starts Hit 12-Month High in February

No Comments


Limited existing inventory helped single-family starts to post a solid gain in February, but builders are still grappling with elevated construction costs stemming from tariff issues and persistent shortages related to buildable lots and labor.

Overall housing starts increased 11.2% in February to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.50 million units, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Census Bureau. The February reading of 1.50 million starts is the number of housing units builders would begin if development kept this pace for the next 12 months.

Within this overall number, single-family starts increased 11.4% to a 1.11 million seasonally adjusted annual rate, the highest pace since February 2024. The multifamily sector, which includes apartment buildings and condos, increased 10.7% to an annualized 393,000 pace.

While solid demand and a lack of existing inventory provided a boost to single-family production in February, our latest builder survey shows that builders remain concerned about challenging housing affordability conditions, most notably elevated financing and construction costs as well as tariffs on key building materials.

On a regional and year-to-date basis, combined single-family and multifamily starts were 4.7% lower in the Northeast, 21.5% lower in the Midwest, 8.3% lower in the South and 20.2% higher in the West.

Overall permits decreased 1.2% to a 1.46-million-unit annualized rate in February and were down 6.8% compared to February 2024. Single-family permits decreased 0.2% to a 992,000-unit rate and were down 3.4% compared to the previous year. Multifamily permits decreased 3.1% to a 464,000 pace.

Looking at regional permit data on a year-to-date basis, permits were 30.1% lower in the Northeast, 2.3% higher in the Midwest, 2.1% lower in the South and 12.5% lower in the West.

The number of single-family homes under construction in February was down 6.7% from a year ago, at 640,000 homes. In February, the count of apartments under construction increased 0.3% to an annualized 772,000 pace. It marks the first gain after 18 months of consecutive declines but was still down 20% from a year ago.

There were 526,000 multifamily completions in February, down 15% from the previous year. For each apartment starting construction, there are 1.5 apartments completing the construction process.

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .

Read More
By
In Research & Trends

Housing Starts Retreat at the Start of 2025

No Comments


Constrained housing affordability conditions due to ongoing, elevated interest rates led to a reduction in single-family production to start the new year.

Overall housing starts decreased 9.8% in January to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.37 million units, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Census Bureau. The January reading of 1.37 million starts is the number of housing units builders would begin if development kept this pace for the next 12 months.

Within this overall number, single-family starts decreased 8.4% to a 993,000 seasonally adjusted annual rate; the January pace was 1.8% lower than a year ago. The multifamily sector, which includes apartment buildings and condos, decreased 13.5% to an annualized 373,000 pace.

As mirrored in the NAHB/Wells Fargo HMI, high construction costs, elevated mortgage rates and challenging housing affordability conditions are causing builders to approach the market with caution. There are competing upside and downside risks, including discussed tariffs and regulatory reform. Given persistent affordability concerns, reducing inefficient regulatory costs would offer the best policy path to improve attainable housing supply and bring down shelter inflation.

On a regional basis compared to the previous month, combined single-family and multifamily starts are 27.6% lower in the Northeast, 10.4% lower in the Midwest, 23.3% lower in the South and 42.3% higher in the West.

Overall permits increased 0.1% to a 1.48 million unit annualized rate in January. Single-family permits were at a 996,000 annual unit rate, remaining unchanged compared to the previous month. Multifamily permits increased 0.2% to an annualized 487,000 pace.

Looking at regional permit data compared to the previous month, permits are 6.1% lower in the Northeast, 1.8% higher in the Midwest, 0.1% lower in the South and 2.3% higher in the West.

The number of single-family homes under construction in January is down 6.3% from a year ago, to 641,000 units. The number of multifamily units under construction is down 22.1% from a year ago, to 768,000 units.

There were 669,000 multifamily completions in January, up 11% from January 2024. For each apartment starting construction, there are 1.8 apartments completing the construction process.

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .

Read More
By
In Research & Trends

Builder Confidence Falls on Tariff and Housing Cost Concerns

No Comments


Builder sentiment fell sharply in February over concerns on tariffs, elevated mortgage rates and high housing costs.

Builder confidence in the market for newly built single-family homes was 42 in February, down five points from January and the lowest level in five months, according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI).

While builders hold out hope for pro-development policies, particularly for regulatory reform, policy uncertainty and cost factors created a reset for 2025 expectations in the most recent HMI. Uncertainty on the tariff front helped push builders’ expectations for future sales volume down to the lowest level since December 2023.

With 32% of appliances and 30% of softwood lumber coming from international trade, uncertainty over the scale and scope of tariffs has builders further concerned about costs. Reflecting this outlook, builder responses collected prior to a pause for the proposed tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico yielded a lower HMI reading of 38, while those collected after the announced one-month pause produced a score of 44. Addressing the elevated pace of shelter inflation requires bending the housing cost curve to enable adding more attainable housing.

Incentive use may also be weakening as a sales strategy as elevated interest rates reduce the pool of eligible home buyers. The latest HMI survey also revealed that 26% of builders cut home prices in February, down from 30% in January and the lowest share since May 2024. Meanwhile, the average price reduction was 5% in February, the same rate as the previous month. The use of sales incentives was 59% in February, down from 61% in January.

Derived from a monthly survey that NAHB has been conducting for more than 35 years, the NAHB/Wells Fargo HMI gauges builder perceptions of current single-family home sales and sales expectations for the next six months as “good,” “fair” or “poor.” The survey also asks builders to rate traffic of prospective buyers as “high to very high,” “average” or “low to very low.” Scores for each component are then used to calculate a seasonally adjusted index where any number over 50 indicates that more builders view conditions as good than poor.

All three of the major HMI indices posted losses in February. The HMI index gauging current sales conditions fell four points to 46, the component measuring sales expectations in the next six months plunged 13 points to 46, and the gauge charting traffic of prospective buyers posted a three-point decline to 29.

Looking at the three-month moving averages for regional HMI scores, the Northeast fell three points in February to 57, the Midwest moved two points lower to 45, the West edged one-point lower to 39 and the South held steady at 46. The HMI tables can be found at nahb.org/hmi.

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .

Read More
By
In Research & Trends

Student Housing Construction Investment Decreases in the Last Quarter of 2024

No Comments


Private fixed investment in student dormitories edged down by 1.3% in the fourth quarter of 2024, reaching a seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of $3.86 billion. This decline follows a 1.9% increase in the prior quarter. However, private fixed investment in dorms was 7.2% lower than a year ago, as the elevated interest rates place a damper on student housing construction.  

Private fixed investment in student housing experienced a surge after the Great Recession, as college enrollment increased from 17.2 million in 2006 to 20.4 million in 2011. However, during the pandemic, private fixed investment in student housing declined drastically from $4.4 billion (SAAR) in the last quarter of 2019 to $3 billion in the second quarter of 2021, as COVID-19 interrupted normal on-campus learning. According to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, college enrollment fell by 3.6% in the fall of 2020 and by 3.1% in the fall of 2021.  

Since then, private fixed investment has rebounded, as college enrollments show a slow but stabilizing recovery from pandemic driven declines. Effective in-person learning requires college students to return to campuses, boosting the student housing sector. Furthermore, the demand for student housing is growing robustly, because total enrollment in postsecondary institutions is projected to increase 8% from 2020 to 2030, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. 

Despite recent fluctuations, the student housing construction shows signs of recovery and is expected to grow in response to increasing student enrollment projections. 

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .

Read More
By
In Research & Trends

Housing Starts End 2024 on an Up Note

No Comments


Fueled by solid demand, single-family construction moved higher in December despite several headwinds facing the industry, including high mortgage rates, elevated financing costs for builders and a lack of buildable lots.

Overall housing starts increased 15.8% in December to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.50 million units, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the highest rate since February 2024.

The December reading of 1.50 million starts is the number of housing units builders would begin if development kept this pace for the next 12 months. Within this overall number, single-family starts increased 3.3% to a 1.05 million seasonally adjusted annual rate. The multifamily sector, which includes apartment buildings and condos, increased 61.5%for December to a 449,000 pace.

Total housing starts for 2024 were 1.36 million, a 3.9% decline from the 1.42 million total from 2023. Single-family starts in 2024 totaled 1.01 million, up 6.5% from the previous year. NAHB is forecasting a slight gain for single-family home building in 2025 because of a persistent housing shortage and ongoing solid economic conditions.

Multifamily starts ended the year down 25% from 2023. In December, and on a three-month moving average basis, there were 1.7 apartments completing construction for every one apartment starting construction. Multifamily construction will stabilize later in 2025 as more deals pencil out, with the industry supported by a low national unemployment rate.

Single-family completions ended 2024 up 2.2%.  Multifamily completions ended 2024 up 35%.  Within multifamily, the missing middle (two- to four-unit completions) were up 42.5%, for a total of 16,600 duplexes through quadplexes. Like ongoing strength for townhouse construction, this market data indicates that with zoning reform more medium density housing can be built in markets where such demand exists.

On a regional and for 2024 year, combined single-family and multifamily starts were 9.1% higher in the Northeast, 0.1% lower in the Midwest, 5.2% lower in the South and 7.7% lower in the West.

Overall permits decreased 0.7% a 1.48 million unit annualized rate in December and were down 3.1% compared to December 2023. Single-family permits increased 1.6% to a 992,000 unit rate but were down 2.5% in December compared to the previous year. Multifamily permits decreased 5.0% to a 491,000 pace.

Looking at regional permit data for 2024 permits were 1.5% higher in the Northeast, 3.5% higher in the Midwest, 3.1% lower in the South and 6.6% lower in the West.

Total permits for 2024 were 1.47 million, a 2.6% decline from the 1.51 million total from 2023. Single-family permits in 2024 totaled 981,000 up 6.6% from the previous year, a positive sign for 2025.

The number of single-family homes under construction was down 5.3% from a year ago, at 641,000 homes. The number of apartments under construction was down 21% from a year ago, at 790,000. The count of apartments under construction peaked in July 2023 at 1.02 million and has been trending lower since that time.

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .

Read More
By
In Research & Trends

Housing Inflation Moderates Amid Higher Energy Costs

No Comments


Inflation edged up to a five-month high in December as energy prices surged, accounting for more than 40% of the monthly headline increase. Inflation ended 2024 at a 2.9% rate, down from 3.4% a year ago, although the last mile to the Fed’s 2% target continues to be challenging. While core inflation remained stubborn due to elevated shelter and other service costs, housing costs showed signs of cooling – the year-over-year change in the shelter index remained below 5% for a fourth straight month and posted its lowest annual gain since January 2022, suggesting a continued moderation in housing inflation.

While the Fed’s interest rate cuts could help ease some pressure on the housing market, its ability to address rising housing costs is limited, as these increases are driven by a lack of affordable supply and increasing development costs. In fact, tight monetary policy hurts housing supply because it increases the cost of AD&C financing. This can be seen on the graph below, as shelter costs continue to rise at an elevated pace despite Fed policy tightening. Additional housing supply is the primary solution to tame housing inflation.

Furthermore, the election result has put inflation back in the spotlight and added additional   risks to the economic outlook. Proposed tax cuts and tariffs could increase inflationary pressures, suggesting a more gradual easing cycle with a slightly higher terminal federal funds rate. However, economic growth could also be higher with lower regulatory burdens. Given the housing market’s sensitivity to interest rates, a higher inflation path could extend the affordability crisis and constrain housing supply as builders continue to grapple with lingering supply chain challenges. During the past twelve months, on a non-seasonally adjusted basis, the Consumer Price Index rose by 2.9% in December, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ report. This followed a 2.7% year-over-year increase in November. Excluding the volatile food and energy components, the “core” CPI increased by 3.2% over the past twelve months, after holding steady at 3.3% for three months. The component index of food rose by 2.5%, while the energy component index fell by 0.5%.

On a monthly basis, the CPI rose by 0.4% in December on a seasonally adjusted basis, after a 0.3% increase in November. The “core” CPI increased by 0.2% in December, after rising  0.3% for three consecutive months.

The price index for a broad set of energy sources rose by 2.6% in December, with increases across all categories including gasoline (+4.4%), fuel oil (+4.4%), natural gas (+2.4%) and electricity (+0.3%). Meanwhile, the food index rose 0.3%, after a 0.4% increase in November. Both indexes for food away from home and food at home increased by 0.3%.

The index for shelter (+0.3%) was the largest contributor to the monthly increase in all items index, accounting for nearly 37% of the total increase. Other top contributors that rose in December include indexes for airline fares (+3.9%), used cars and trucks, (+1.2%) and new vehicles (+0.5%). Meanwhile, the index for personal care (-0.2%) was among the few major indexes that decreased over the month. The index for shelter makes up more than 40% of the “core” CPI, rose by 0.3% in December, the same increase last month. Both indexes for owners’ equivalent rent (OER) and rent of primary residence (RPR) increased by 0.3% over the month. Despite the moderation, shelter costs remained the largest contributors to headline inflation.

NAHB constructs a “real” rent index to indicate whether inflation in rents is faster or slower than overall inflation. It provides insight into the supply and demand conditions for rental housing. When inflation in rents is rising faster than overall inflation, the real rent index rises and vice versa. The real rent index is calculated by dividing the price index for rent by the core CPI (to exclude the volatile food and energy components). In December, the Real Rent Index rose by 0.1%. Over the twelve months of 2024, the monthly growth rate of the Real Rent Index averaged 0.1%, slower than the average of 0.2% in 2023.

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .

Read More
By
In Research & Trends

Top Posts – Considering Housing Inventory: Why Both New and Existing Supply Matters

No Comments


With the end of 2024 approaching, NAHB’s Eye on Housing is reviewing the posts that attracted the most readers over the last year. In June, Chief Economist Rob Dietz highlighted the importance of both new and existing home inventory in understanding housing market dynamics, emphasizing that while rising inventory may signal price moderation, the current low levels of resale homes still support home construction and price growth.

Total (new and existing) home inventory is an important measure for gauging and forecasting home prices and home construction impacts. The intuition is clear: more inventory yields weaker or declining home price growth and home building activity. Lean inventory levels lead to price growth and gains for home building.

The metric “months’ supply” is a common measure of current market inventory. For both new and existing home markets, months’ supply converts inventory from a count of homes into a measure of how many months it would take for that count of home inventory to be sold at the current monthly sales pace.

Housing economists typically advise that a balanced market is a five- to six-months’ supply. Larger inventory levels than this benchmark risk producing deteriorating conditions for price growth and building activity.

In the Census May 2024 newly-built home sales data, the current months’ supply of inventory is 9.3. Some analysts have noted that, given the five- to six-month benchmark, that this means the building market for single-family homes is possibly oversupplied, implying declines for construction and prices lie ahead.

However, this narrow reading of the industry misses the mark. First, it is worth noting that new home inventory consists of homes completed and ready to occupy, homes currently under construction and homes that have not begun construction. That is, new home inventory is a measure of homes available for sale, rather than homes ready to occupy. In fact, just 21% of new home inventory in May consisted of standing inventory or homes that have completed construction (99,000 homes).

More fundamentally, an otherwise elevated level of new home months’ supply is justified in current conditions because the inventory of resale homes continues to be low. Indeed, according to NAR data, the current months’ supply of single-family homes is just 3.6, well below the five- to six-month threshold. It is this lack of inventory that has produced ongoing price increases despite significantly higher interest rates over the last two years.

Taken together, new and existing single-family home inventory, the current months’ supply of both markets is just 4.4, as estimated for this analysis. This is admittedly higher than the 3.6 reading, using this approach, from a year ago, but it still qualifies as low. See the following graph for total months’ supply going back to the early 1980s using data from the NAR existing home sales series and the Census new home sales data, as calculated by NAHB.

Yes, inventory is rising and will continue to rise, particularly as the mortgage rate lock-in effect diminishes in the quarters ahead. But current inventory levels continue to support, on a national basis, new construction and some price growth, per this current reading of total months’ supply.

Further, the housing deficit (NAHB estimates about 1.5 million homes), which was produced by a decade of underbuilding due to a perfect storm of supply-side challenges, has generated a separation in the normally co-linear measures of new and existing home months’ supply. This separation became particularly pronounced during the COVID and post-COVID period of the housing market. June 2022 recorded the largest ever lead of new home months’ supply (9.9) over existing single-family home months’ supply (2.9). This separation makes it clear that an evaluation of current market inventory cannot simply examine either the existing or the new home inventory in isolation.

With the current total months’ supply at 4.4, what does this mean for the market, particularly with respect to pricing and construction trends? To examine this question, I calculated the total months’ supply reported on the first graph in this post. I then examined price movements and single-family construction starts data with respect to current total months’ supply. The results are broadly consistent with the existing rules of thumb regarding market conditions.

The horizontal axis plots total months’ supply for monthly data going back to the start of 1988 (the starting point of the price data used for this analysis). The vertical axis records the corresponding year-over-year home price growth for the same month as measured by the Case-Shiller Home Price Index. The trend line is estimated using a simple linear regression. The statistical correlation indicates that home price growth, on average, turns negative when inventory reaches an 8-months’ total supply (on the graph, the trend line intersects the horizontal axis, measuring zero percent price growth, at 8 months’ supply).

To be clear, this does not mean that prices will not fall until months’ supply exceeds eight. For example, 24% of the data registering 6.5 to 7.5 months’ supply recorded home price declines. For the data in the range of 7.5 months’ supply to less than 8 months’ supply, this share increased to 36%. Overall, for months with less than an eight months’ supply, it was less likely than not to see home price declines, but it did happen in certain market conditions.

And to be complete, home prices did not always fall when total inventory was greater than an eight months’ supply. For example, for months with a months’ supply measure of 8.5 to 9.5, homes prices increased 36% of the time.

Taken together, these general trends indicate that a months’ supply of less than eight has historically been positive for nominal home price growth. That’s where market conditions are today.

What about impacts for single-family home building? The data are little less clear (as seen by smaller R-squared measures on the trends), but this should not be a surprise. Home building is a function of both demand-side housing factors, like mortgage interest rates, as well as volatile supply-side variables like the cost and availability of labor, lots, lending, lumber/materials, and legal/regulatory policies and fees. Nonetheless, using Census housing starts data and the same total months’ supply metric, a trend is apparent, and it is one that matches up well with existing rules of thumb.

As the chart above indicates, a simple linear trend of monthly data going back to mid-1982 (the limit of the supply data) indicates that at roughly 6-months’ total home inventory, single-family home building reaches a zero percent year-over year growth rate. As before, and as seen in the graph above, the correlation is not absolute.

For example, for otherwise tight 4.5 months’ to 5.5 months’ new and existing home supply, single-family home building did contract 27% of the time. On the other hand, for markets with more inventory than the benchmark (6.5 to 7.5 months’ supply), home building expanded 30% of the measured months. As with home prices, the trend is not absolute, but the six-months’ supply benchmark is a useful rule of thumb for examining whether builders will reach a neutral stance for expanding home construction activity.

It is worth noting that home builder production can occur with a lag with respect to inventory conditions. For example, the time between permit approval and the start of construction was approximately 1.3 months in 2022 (2023 data will be available in the coming months). And single-family construction time averaged 8.3 months, per NAHB estimates using Census data. Mindful of these lags, I examined the impact of total months’ supply on single-family starts with both a three-month and six-month lag. In both analyses, the 6-months’ benchmark was again validated. For a relatively straightforward analytical approach, this represents a fairly robust result, albeit one with a notable amount of statistical noise due to supply-side factors associated with construction inputs and constraints.

The data thus show that current market conditions are unusual, with a large gap between new and existing single-family months’ supply. Analyses that rely on just one of these measures will be misleading. A total months’ supply measure that measures both new and existing inventory is required to gauge the status of inventory conditions and possible impacts on home prices and home building.

Furthermore, the historical correlations suggest that home builders will significantly slow home building activity at a 6-months’ supply of total housing inventory. And price declines become more likely than not at an 8-months’ supply.  

In the meantime, builders, housing stakeholders, and analysts should view the current nine months’ supply for new homes within its proper context. This will be particularly important as resale levels continue to rise, with additional gains expected to occur as the mortgage-rate lock-in effect diminishes in the quarters ahead. However, keep in mind, lower mortgage rates will also unambiguously improve housing affordability conditions and price prospective home buyers back in the market, thus putting downward pressure on the months’ supply metric by increasing sales rates.

With each Census new home sales report, NAHB will continue to estimate and watch the total months’ supply measure. But given this analysis, at 4.4 total months’ supply, inventory levels have increased but remain low and supportive of limited gains for home building and upward pressure on nominal home prices.

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .

Read More
By
Load More
Pin It