Join the conversation. Take a poll at the end of this column.
Highlights:
- Author contends Denver housing market is sick.
- Low inventory driving up prices.
- Expects home prices to drop this year.
By Michael Clarkson
Special to InsideRealEstateNews.com
Despite all of the recent hype, the Denver-area housing market is not strong.
My research shows that the Denver market is headed for another mini-bubble.
It is true that by the traditional benchmark of months of inventory, the Denver market is looking good.
For the uninitiated in real estate, the inventory is a ratio that is calculated by dividing the “number of homes sold per month” into that number of “active listings.”
Based on that measure, there is only about a two-months supply of unsold homes on the market.
A balanced market is considered to be six months of inventory. Anything above that is a seller’s market, and anything below it is a buyer’s market. Using just this one metric, the Denver market clearly would be “off to the races.” However, there is more to this than just one simple number.
The Denver market is very sick.
Like Lyle Alzado, the former Denver Bronco from the “Orange Crush” era in the 1970s, who died from a brain tumor, the housing market has an outward appearance of health while having a slowly metastasizing cancer lurking in the background – one which could surprise many very quickly.
The Denver market’s strength is not that of a typical market. The market has fewer and fewer listings.
Indeed, there were only 6,786 active listings at the end of February, the lowest in more than 28 years, even though even though Denver metropolitan statistical area grew about 200 percent between 1984 and today. To put that into perspective, Denver typically has 24,400 listings in February.
So, the numerator in the equation (listings) has dropped 72 percent, while the denominator (number of sold listings) is only down by 4.2 percent.
Thus, the relative improvement in the market is an arithmetic function, due to low listing inventory, rather than an actual improvement in the market.
The real problem in Denver is the absence of entry-level inventory.
While it’s true that low interest rates make more expensive homes more affordable, the entry (or re-entry) buyers may tend to be reluctant to sign up for a $250,000 to $300,000 commitment right out of the gate – particularly in such a serial-catastrophe driven economy.
In this environment, one starts to see a phenomenon I call “draining the tub”.
In a normal market, one sees the average buyer acquiring a home that is about 50 percent more than their current home, leveraging the equity built up. Thus, one sees steady growth as inventory cycles.
In today’s market there isn’t much equity.
While about one third of homes are owned outright, the more mobile segments of the market are underwater (or underwater including transaction costs) and unable to move. So, normal supply and demand is disrupted, like is happening in Denver (among other markets).
Here’s where the misconception about market strength occurs.
As upwardly mobile consumers buy homes, they traditionally move up into more expensive homes. In a normal market, new entrants come in at the bottom and a sustained growth rate occurs, such as between January 2006 and January 2007.
However, when there are spikes in values like is occurring in Phoenix, Las Vegas and Denver, there is likely one culprit — the sales funnel is drying up.
The real estate market is like a funnel, or a bathtub drain. When the tub is full or the faucet is on, the tub drains at some rate. Ideally, that drain rate is about the same as it fills up.
When we have a market like we did in 2008, the tub overflows. However, when lower priced activity dries up, as is happening in Denver today, then it’s the equivalent of the faucet being turned off. That’s because few entrants are coming into the market.
When you are looking at the drain, in this case the homes on the MLS, the pipe still looks full – for quite a while after the faucet is shut off. When the tub’s level recedes to the lip of the drain, the pipe still looks full.
However, when the last of the water (listings, if you will) pass into the pipe, nothing flows through the pipeline.
So, how do you tell if the tub is getting close to draining?
It’s really simple: one sees a price spike for listings concurrent with a price drop on actual solds.
At some point that pipeline of sales dries up and sales and prices plummet.
You can see blips in Denver’s market in July 2007, late 2008…and now.
The chart below illustrates what happens when there are 15 homes of different prices on the market. Each month, the least expensive homes sell, until only the most expensive homes remain.
Listings Month 1 Month 2 Month 3
$100,000 5 0 0
$200,000 5 5 0
$300,000 5 5 5
Total Listings 15 5 5
Average List Price $200.000 10 $300,000
Average Price Sold NA $250,000 $200,000
As you can see, the more expensive properties list in greater quantity and remain unsold. The fewer, actually affordable listings, transact at a lower volume
This will result in a price drop.
Why?
Well, because using FHA standards (and putting aside PMI and the initial down), a home owner will need to make $100,000 per year to qualify for a $350,000 property – the next rung on this property ladder. Only about 15 percent of the US population earns $100,000 or more per year.
So, when the pipeline of less expensive listings dries up, the market becomes inaccessible (equity excluded) to 85 percent of the US population. A
This causes the median price to drop as listing prices go up. This gives you the divergence you see now in Denver…and saw in July 2007 and in late 2008, resulting in:
- Increasing listing prices.
- Decreasing median sold prices.
What does this mean?
If history of prices repeats – which it often does – Denver will see a drop in prices in 2013. And so will other parts of the country with a similar pattern.
Michael Clarkson is the broker/owner of Snow Coast Real Estate. To learn more, please visit: www.SnowCoastRealEstateBlog.
Have a story idea or real estate tip? Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com. InsideRealEstateNews.com is sponsored by Universal Lending, Land Title Guarantee and 8z Real Estate. To read more articles by John Rebchook, subscribe to the Colorado Real Estate Journal
< class="related_post_title">Related Posts:>

















Congratulations! Michael Clarkson has mastered the most fundamental law of economics. When supply decreases, prices increase. Unfortunately, that is the only thing that makes sense in this article.
“In a normal market, new entrants come in at the bottom and a sustained growth rate occurs, such as between January 2006 and January 2007.”
There was absolutely nothing normal about the NINJA days of the peak of the credit bubble in ’06 or ’07. Prices are increasing because wages are increasing and Denver has the best job growth since the ’90s. The inventory drop and rise in prices is similar to what happened in ’92. If you remember, prices kept rising the entire decade and more than doubled. While every cycle is different, we are nowhere near the top in Denver. It will be 3-6 years from now before prices stop rising.
DJ you really need to get your data showing wage growth over to the US Census statisticians. You clearly have data they are missing….
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21587235/decline-colorado-household-income-slowing-census-shows
The ability of real estate prices to grow at 10%, with nominal wages growing at 1.5%, is unsustainable. So far this divergence has been exacerbated by historically low inventory and historically low interest rates. I would expect regression to to mean, by either wages rising fast or home prices dropping. This disconnect can’t go much further…..
That data is two years old and not relevant anymore. Wages are higher now than they have ever been in Denver and they will continue to grow at a greater then 4% rate for several years.
Folks:
I am a guest columnist on the @Inside Real Estate News site today.
Please encourage all your friends to… http://t.co/2hVIPg7dox
What do you think Denver? What housing rally? http://t.co/sTFnkB6E0F
Well, because using FHA standards (and putting aside PMI and the initial down), a home owner will need to make $100,000 per year to qualify for a $350,000 property – the next rung on this property ladder. Only about 15 percent of the US population earns $100,000 or more per year.
Not exactly… A $350K FHA payment would be $1925(PI&MIP). add $200 for taxes and $100 for insurance and you have a total payment of $2225. FHA will allow a DTI of 42%. So, the minimum income needed for a FHA $350K loan would be $5,400 per month or $64,800 per year. Of course, most 1st time buyer have some debt. Let’s assume a $350 student loan and $400 car payment. The buyer would need to make $7,200 or $86,400. If rates rise to 5.5% it would take an income of $98,400 under the same scenario.
@Jason: You’re right. Indeed, taking all the appropriate add-ons into the mix affordability drops further! I just simplified it for space.
@DJ: I agree with you, too. There is a slight – but important – qualifier I would add: It is EFFECTIVE demand that economists refer to as a factor in demand/supply shifts which affect pricing. I want to have a 747, but I have no effective means of acquiring one (yet).
However, @DJ, I would also offer that in Denver 2006 and 2007 were not spectacular, by any means. It was a Buyer’s market (6-7 months) through much of that time. (I actually have deeper analysis on my blog from that timeframe, if you care to look.) However, demand and supply were more closely aligned with historical norms and the cycle of buy-ups were normalized. The point of this article is to say that we are now at a point of effective demand (ability to pay for it) is now migrating to ineffective demand (like my wanting a 747). Unless there is 6.5% growth in wages per month – like the listing price hikes – then the cycle of sales will be interrupted. I am saying the arithmetic is pointing to that very issue — likely in the near term.
@Michael: In 2006 & 2007 I witnessed “move up” buyers buying McMansions for no other reason than they could qualify for larger mortgages due to easy financing. It did not feel one ioda like normal buying and selling. I would argue that prices in Denver would have been falling, not rising during that time period, if it were not for the easy money. By contrast, we are in a much healthier “real” cycle now that is based on actual supply/demand. So what if there aren’t enough cheap houses available. People will rent until they can afford more expensive homes or more homes will be built or more will come to market somehow to meet demand.
@DJ:
That’s an interesting perspective. Given rental demand is very high, vacancy is only 2.3%, when a balanced market is in the 8-10% range.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=DOLA-Main%2FCBONLayout&cid=1251592890239&pagename=CBONWrapper
Given taxes increased, petrol prices have increased…I am not sure where the discretionary income will come from to save for a new home.
However, your statement proves my point; if people are renting, they aren’t buying. Thus, they are ineffective demand. So, ironically, you prove my point in your remarks.
People will rent more apartments if they cant rent houses. My point is that prices will not fall and we are in a bull market in housing in Denver. Those who have taken my advice to buy two years ago have already have seen huge gains (leveraged gains in excess of 100%). Those who buy now will still be rewarded, just not like those who bought already. Time will tell, but I’ve grown quite accustomed to being right, especially when the majority sees differently.
RT @SnowCoastRealty: #Denver #realestate #housing market overhyped? Read @JohnRebchook column and vote at … http://t.co/kMbmfoQ5HW (RT)
Denver home prices could drop in 2013 because of some unforeseen major world event or a sharp increase in interest rates. Baring those, they will go up. It is very hard for me to follow Clarkson’s line of thought, but as best as I can tell, he is asserting that prices will go down because inventory will dry up, this just makes no sense to me. There may be some curious statistical oddity currently that average listing prices are going up while average sold prices are going down (I have no idea if this claim is actually true), but I think it is flawed logic to extrapolate far upon that. Additionally, Clarkson ignores the fact that the cost to build a house in many parts of the Denver Metro area is still in excess of sales prices, this being the fundamental reason supply is down, When home prices get to the point where builders can make a comfortable profit, builders will build, and there will be more supply.
At Michael,
Then how do you explain Sacramento?
Dave, I just don’t know the Sacramento market specifically enough to respond. Might you share some insights as to the point you are seeking to highlight?
Are you asleep?
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/asking-prices/california/sacramento/
@Dave:
I am still awake. I did take a look at the link. I would need more information to make the assessment of that market.
One significant metric I use – as stated in the article – was Inventory Volatility Oscillation. Sales alone means little. Inventory alone means little. Inventory Volatility Oscillation is a predictive indicator, which telegraphs the market by about 6 months. The occasions centered around the zero delta mark tend to predict the behavior of a market turning off.
You can ask @JohnRebchook, I had seen this predictive behavior back in June of last year. I predicted a slowing market, which the listings are a foretelling of now. I also predicted a sharpening sales spike — also occurring now. I believe this predictor will also predict the severe slowdown of this (Denver) market — and markets with similar characteristics.
The point is: Time will tell. I just think my predictors foretell the situation.
I should say, I thought it would start to pop toward the end of last year. However, I think the macro-economic environment, where many deals were accelerated into Q4/12 from 2013 due to the tax law changes surrounding the Fiscal Cliff, disrupted the numbers.
However, you’ll note the chart is nearly flatlining. Just like a EKG, the results of a flatline are lethal.
Slowing market, how so? IVO? Theres a new one. Did you invent that metric? Sounds fancy. Let me explain whats going on so my grandma can understand. We had a bear market from 2001-2010. More homes were built than needed. Now we have 2.5 buyers for every home, so prices increase when demand exceeds supply. These cycles are long and predictable, and any attempt to be precise with technical analysis is futile. As long as there is positive job growth, prices will continue to rise. Also, high inflation will cause prices to rise. It really is that simple.
@Michael
Kudos for defending your position. It is rare on this blog.
Baloney Michael Clarkson! I’ve been a broker for over 30 years and survived a couple of downturns. This housing recovery is real and we will slide into a downturn at the end of this upward trend. It is a 8-10 cycle and has not missed by much each cycle. I heard a speaker at the National Association of Realtors in 2002 and he gave a hell of a presentation on the Real Estate cycle. He was spot on and the history of real estate that day and from that day forward he was absolutely correct.
I failed to add about builders not being able to build to fit the median priced market, but will build cost-plus to ensure profits as the prior blog by Dan Palomino “With no resales, builders take hard line” points out.
Builders won’t build the entry level home, they too will compete for the $400,000 market more than they will the $200,000 market — which only compounds the issue I shared — the $400,000 home (previously built) will still stay on the market.
Granted, it’s not as simple as that, but the numbers tell that analogy to me.