In the comments of my recent post about Manhattan real estate prices during the Great Depression, a regular reader of this blog shared this terrific blog post (and corresponding research paper by Piet Eichholtz) about house prices along the Herengracht canal in Amsterdam from 1628 to 1973. Later it was updated to include up to 2008. It’s a long run house price index.
Probably the first thing you’ll notice is that the index is highly volatile. Amsterdam enters its Golden Age, creates the world’s first stock exchange, and becomes the wealthiest city in the western world – house prices go way up. The tulip mania bubble pops – house prices go way down. It’s not until after World War II that prices sort of start to stabilize and increase, maybe, more consistently.
In nominal dollars, the house price index increases 10x over the study period. But in real dollars most of that disappears. The biennial increase (that’s how the study was done) over the same period of time is just 0.5%. That translates into a doubling of house prices, which may seem quite good, except that remember it’s over a 380 year time period.

The Herengracht canal is a particularly good study because it was and has remained (or so I’m told) a desirable part of Amsterdam. This is an attempt to control for the variable that maybe some of the volatility could be explained by the area simply falling out of favor. (As a quick sidebar, the Herengracht was one of the first canals laid and dug out around the original city center of medieval Amsterdam during its Golden Age.)
Generally, this finding is in line with one that economist Robert J. Shiller famously published a number of years ago where he argued that, when you correct for inflation, home prices actually look remarkably stable over long-run forecasts. In one study, he looked at 100 years of US home prices ending in 1990. Real home prices increased about 0.2% a year. What an outstanding hedge against inflation.
Yale economist Robert Shiller - who is famous for his work on speculative bubbles and housing markets - was just awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics.
By way of his Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, he has argued that from 1890 to 2012 home price appreciation in the US (in real terms) has been basically zero. It has been flat:
As a result, he’s been very critical of the notion that homes should even be thought of as an investment. In this interview, he says the following:
“So, why was it considered an investment? That was a fad. That was an idea that took hold in the early 2000’s. And I don’t expect it to come back. Not with the same force. So people might just decide, "Yeah, I’ll diversify my portfolio. I’ll live in a rental.” That is a very sensible thing for many people to do.“
He also gives the example of Japan, which saw a massive run up in real estate prices and homeownership rates in the late 80s, only to then see them fall and stagnate for the next 20 years.
In the US, homeownership rates have gone from about 69% at the peak (2006) to roughly 65% as of 2013. The long term average is probably somewhere in between these two numbers.
But homeownership is a fundamental and heavily subsidized part of the American dream. Could America ever be a nation of renters?
In the comments of my recent post about Manhattan real estate prices during the Great Depression, a regular reader of this blog shared this terrific blog post (and corresponding research paper by Piet Eichholtz) about house prices along the Herengracht canal in Amsterdam from 1628 to 1973. Later it was updated to include up to 2008. It’s a long run house price index.
Probably the first thing you’ll notice is that the index is highly volatile. Amsterdam enters its Golden Age, creates the world’s first stock exchange, and becomes the wealthiest city in the western world – house prices go way up. The tulip mania bubble pops – house prices go way down. It’s not until after World War II that prices sort of start to stabilize and increase, maybe, more consistently.
In nominal dollars, the house price index increases 10x over the study period. But in real dollars most of that disappears. The biennial increase (that’s how the study was done) over the same period of time is just 0.5%. That translates into a doubling of house prices, which may seem quite good, except that remember it’s over a 380 year time period.

The Herengracht canal is a particularly good study because it was and has remained (or so I’m told) a desirable part of Amsterdam. This is an attempt to control for the variable that maybe some of the volatility could be explained by the area simply falling out of favor. (As a quick sidebar, the Herengracht was one of the first canals laid and dug out around the original city center of medieval Amsterdam during its Golden Age.)
Generally, this finding is in line with one that economist Robert J. Shiller famously published a number of years ago where he argued that, when you correct for inflation, home prices actually look remarkably stable over long-run forecasts. In one study, he looked at 100 years of US home prices ending in 1990. Real home prices increased about 0.2% a year. What an outstanding hedge against inflation.
Yale economist Robert Shiller - who is famous for his work on speculative bubbles and housing markets - was just awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics.
By way of his Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, he has argued that from 1890 to 2012 home price appreciation in the US (in real terms) has been basically zero. It has been flat:
As a result, he’s been very critical of the notion that homes should even be thought of as an investment. In this interview, he says the following:
“So, why was it considered an investment? That was a fad. That was an idea that took hold in the early 2000’s. And I don’t expect it to come back. Not with the same force. So people might just decide, "Yeah, I’ll diversify my portfolio. I’ll live in a rental.” That is a very sensible thing for many people to do.“
He also gives the example of Japan, which saw a massive run up in real estate prices and homeownership rates in the late 80s, only to then see them fall and stagnate for the next 20 years.
In the US, homeownership rates have gone from about 69% at the peak (2006) to roughly 65% as of 2013. The long term average is probably somewhere in between these two numbers.
But homeownership is a fundamental and heavily subsidized part of the American dream. Could America ever be a nation of renters?
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog