The latest Census data shows homeownership is still falling for young adults, and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) reports that the share of first-time home-buyers is slipping. While the housing market is clearly improving, with four of the five key indicators of the housing recovery from our Housing Barometer at least halfway back to normal, it looks like the recovery is happening even without much improvement in first-time homeownership. Does that mean the housing recovery isn't for real?
Not so fast. The official homeownership rate published by the Census gives a misleading picture of homeownership trends. In fact, homeownership among young adults is both on the rise and not too far off from where demographics say it should be. To see this, we did two things in this analysis: (1) account for changes in household formation to get a true measure of homeownership, and (2) adjust for longer-term demographic shifts to compare homeownership levels today with pre-bubble levels.
The answer: our "true" homeownership rate disagrees with the published homeownership rate, and shows that homeownership among young adults increased between 2012 and 2013 after hitting bottom in 2012. However, once we adjust for the huge demographic shifts among young adults - far fewer young adults are married or have kids than two or three decades ago - homeownership in 2013 was roughly at late-1990s levels. That means that the demographic shifts among young adults account for the entire decline in homeownership for 18-34 year-olds over the last twenty years. In other words, if the pre-bubble years of the late 1990s can be considered relatively normal, than today's lower homeownership rate for young adults might be the new normal, thanks to demographic changes.
But that doesn't mean all's well. There may be longer-term damage to homeownership from the recession - but to the middle-aged, not millennials. Homeownership among 35-54 year-olds is lower today than before the housing bubble, even after accounting for demographic shifts. Here's why.
Young Adult Homeownership Actually On the Rise
The published homeownership rate equals the share of households that own their home instead of rent. It does not, however, capture changes in whether people are dropping out of the housing market to live under someone else's roof, like those millennials in their parents' basement, who - in case you missed it - are for real. But if, say, people move out of their parents' homes and into their own rental apartments, the published homeownership rate would still be falling even if the share of young adults who own remains the same.
Instead, we looked at the true homeownership rate, which equals the number of owner-occupied households divided by the number of all adults; in contrast, the published homeownership rate equals the number of owner-occupied households divided by the number of all households. Of course, the true homeownership rate is always going to be much lower - by half or more - than the published homeownership rate because there are roughly twice as many adults as there are households. The key point, though, is that the published and true homeownership rates can move in different directions if the number of adults per household is changing. That is, in fact, what happened during the recession and recovery (see note #1).
During the recession, as more young people moved in with their parents and fewer headed their own households, published homeownership rate fell from 44.1% in 2005 to 36.8% in 2012 - the 7-point decline was a 17% drop in homeownership. (What we're calling "published" numbers actually differ slightly from the quarterly and annual homeownership estimates by age group published by the Census - see note #2.) However, the published rate understated the decline: the true homeownership rate for young adults fell from 17.2% in 2005 to 13.5% in 2012 - a drop of 22%.
Then, during the recovery, more young people started to form their own households, primarily as renters. The additional renters pushed the published homeownership rate for 18-34 year-olds down further in 2013 to its lowest level since our analysis begins in 1983:
But our true homeownership rate, which takes household formation into account, turned up slightly in 2013. It's still the second-lowest year historically, but the tide has turned.
The true and published homeownership rates diverged in 2013 because the headship rate - the share of young adults who head their own household - rose in 2013 back to the highest level since 2010. The headship rate is still low compared with during and before the bubble, but its recent increase must be taken into account in order to get the trend in homeownership right.
Is Today's Millennial Homeownership Rate the New Normal?
With our true homeownership rate, we can now determine how much of today's low homeownership level among millennials is due to longer-term demographic shifts or due to the recent recession. The demographics of 18-34 year-olds have changed dramatically over the past 30 years, between 1983 and 2013, such as:
- The percent married fell from 47% to 30%
- The percent living with their own children fell from 39% to 29%
- The percent non-Hispanic white fell from 78% to 57%
Each of these demographic shifts is a headwind for homeownership. Young people who are married, have children, or are non-Hispanic white are more likely to own a home than among young people who aren't.
One way to quantify the total effect of these demographic factors on homeownership is to predict what might have happened to homeownership with these demographic shifts if none of the changes in behaviors or circumstances that evolved during the bubble, recession, and recovery took place. In other words, pick a baseline time period for a regression analysis - such as the years just before the bubble started (1994-1999) - and estimate what would have happened to homeownership if the likelihood of owning a home for someone with particular demographics in the baseline time period stayed constant and were applied to the actual demographic shifts that really happened (e.g., fewer people getting married, having kids, being non-Hispanic white; see note #3). This "demographic baseline" shows that demographics alone would have predicted a steady decline in the true homeownership rate over the past two decades, from 16.0% in 1994 to 13.1% in 2013 - a drop of 18%.
As we saw above, the true homeownership rate among young adults rose from 1994 to 2005 - bucking the demographic baseline - then fell sharply until 2012 before turning up slightly in 2013. Surprisingly, this means that homeownership in 2013 was still actually a bit above the demographic baseline - which implies that that the overall drop in homeownership for young adults in the past 20 years can be explained by demographic trends alone. Of course, within those two decades the true homeownership rose thanks to easy credit during the bubble and then plunged during the recession, but the bigger point is that it plunged back down only to just above the underlying demographic baseline (see note #4).
In short: although the share of young adults who actually own a home remains considerably lower today (even with the uptick in 2013) than at any time since 1983, it is roughly at late 1990s levels after taking demographic shifts into account. Unless those long-term demographic trends reverse, there might be little room for young-adult homeownership to increase. You'd have to ignore demographic trends that pre-date the bubble to believe that young-adult homeownership will eventually return to its unadjusted pre-bubble levels.
This also implies that there probably hasn't been a huge shift in millennials' attitudes toward homeownership, either, since today's millennials are roughly as likely to own homes as people with similar demographics two decades ago (see note #5).
Worry Instead About Middle-Aged Homeownership
Here's the surprise: it's the middle-aged, not millennials, whose homeownership rate today looks lower than before the bubble. Using the same demographic-baseline analysis, the 2013 homeownership rate for 35-54 year-olds is below the "demographic baseline" (which barely budged over the past 20 years for this age group). Furthermore, homeownership for the middle-aged has not yet begun to turn around as of 2013, unlike for millennials:
Whereas the 2013 homeownership rate for millennials, after adjusting for demographics, is at 1997 levels, the 2013 demographics-adjusted homeownership rate for the middle-aged is at its lowest level in at least two decades (and probably in almost four decades: see note #6).
To see why homeownership is now lagging more among the middle-aged, we repeated the demographic-baseline analysis for five-year age bands. In 2005, the year when the true homeownership rate peaked for most age groups, 25-29 year-olds were the age group for which homeownership was highest relative to the demographic baseline, followed by 30-34 year-olds. These were first-time home-buyers getting easy credit for overpriced homes; then, they bore the brunt of the foreclosure crisis, losing their homes and wrecking their credit history. Eight years later, in 2013, 35-39 year-olds were the age group where homeownership was lowest relative to their demographic baseline; homeownership among 40-44, 45-49, and 50-54 year-olds was also low relative to baseline. Of course, 25-29 or 30-34 year-olds in 2005 grew into 35-39 year-olds in 2013: they are essentially the same people, eight years older.
And that's the point: the rise and fall of homeownership during the housing bubble and bust is about people who are middle-aged today. The millennial generation was still in their early 20s or younger in the mid-2000s - too young to have bought during the bubble and then to have suffered a foreclosure: Only the oldest among the 18-34 year-old group in 2013 would have been of home-buying age during the bubble.
Turning more millennials into homeowners, therefore, may not be the missing piece of the housing recovery after all. Long-term demographic changes mean that homeownership among young adults is roughly where it should be. The real missing homeowners are the middle-aged.
- The true homeownership rate equals the published homeownership rate times the headship rate, which is the number of households relative to the adult population. This post explains in more detail why the published homeownership rate can be misleading.
- All data in this post are based on the Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). What we call the "published homeownership rate" in this post differs from published homeownership data in the Census Homeownership and Vacancy Survey (HVS) because the ASEC and HVS cover slightly different time periods and slightly different survey samples, even though both are based on the CPS. More importantly, we used a different approach for identifying head-of-household than published Census reports do. Whereas Census homeownership rates by age (and other demographics) reflect the demographics of the individual identified in the survey as the householder/head-of-household, we treated married couples where one is identified as head-of-household as co-heads, each weighted at 50%. This does not affect the published or true homeownership rate for all adults since each household still has one head, but it does affect the published and true homeownership rates for specific age groups. Until the early 1990s, the woman in a married-couple homeowner household was identified as the head-of-household less than 10% of the time; in 2013, it was nearly 40%. Because men are, on average, older than women in married couples, the male bias in head-of-household systematically understates the homeownership rate for young adults (e.g. if a 33-year-old woman is married to a 36-year-old man, and he is recorded as the head of household, the homeownership rate among 35-54 year-olds is overstated while the homeownership rate of 18-34 year-olds is understated). We estimate that this bias toward assigning head-of-household to husbands resulted in an understatement of the true homeownership rate among young adults by 10% in 1983 and 3% in 2013.
- The analysis requires making some judgment calls about which factors are longer-term demographic trends that would probably have happened regardless of the recession versus recession effects that are likely to reverse in the recovery. We include sex, age sub-groups, marital status, presence of children, race, ethnicity, and nativity (i.e., born in U.S. or abroad) as our demographics. We also include school enrollment and educational attainment as demographic factors, though that's a tougher call since school enrollment tends to rise in recessions because people can't find jobs. We did not include employment status or income because those are clearly affected by the recession. Some clear-cut demographic factors - like marital status and having children - are also affected by economic conditions, but the longer-term shifts pre-date the recession. We regress true homeownership on demographics for a single model covering 1994-1999; calculate predicted homeownership based on those coefficients applied to the entire sample 1994-2013; and report annual averages of predicted homeownership (the "demographic baseline") and the true homeownership rate. The demographic-adjustment analysis begins in 1994, which is the earliest year that the ASEC includes all of the important demographic variables.
- Determining whether true homeownership is above or below the demographic baseline depends on which years are chosen as the baseline. As an alternative to using a baseline, we used all years 1994-2013 to estimate the trend in homeownership while stripping out the effect of changing demographics: it shows that young-adult homeownership in 2013 is back roughly to 1997 levels.
- The fact that the true homeownership rate for young adults is near the demographic baseline mean, more precisely, that the cumulative, aggregate effect of all non-demographic factors on homeownership is minimal. These non-demographic factors include changing economic circumstances, credit conditions, attitudes, and more. It's possible that separate non-demographic factors moved in opposite directions, canceling each other out. In reality, it's unlikely that attitudes toward homeownership, say, improved while economic circumstances worsened, though possible.
- The full demographic adjustment for creating the demographic baseline is possible for years starting with 1994, when all demographic variables were available. The same analysis can be extended back historically if school enrollment and nativity are omitted from the list of demographics. It shows that the demographics-adjusted true homeownership rate for 35-54 year-olds was lower in 2013 than any other year since 1976.
- The data analyzed in this post were downloaded from the IPUMS CPS website, which requests to be cited as: Miriam King, Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Sarah Flood, Katie Genadek, Matthew B. Schroeder, Brandon Trampe, and Rebecca Vick. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 3.0. [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010.
Building permits/total housing units: 0.15% Decline in building permits 2005-2011: -60.29% (11th smallest) Building permits 2011 YTD: 8,136 Total housing units: 5,567,315 At the beginning of 2011, a number of new, restrictive building codes went into effect in Pennsylvania. This caused a rush among builders to secure permits, with housing permits increasing a massive 117.8% between November and December 2010, according to the Philadelphia Federal Reserve. The state's housing market has not been doing well since. Permits issued from January to June 2011 fell 16% compared to the same six-month period one year earlier. The national average for permits issued in the first six months of 2011 compared to the first six months of 2011 is a decrease of 6%. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
Building permits/total housing units: 0.14% Decline in building permits 2005-2011: Building permits 2011 YTD: -77.09% (11th largest) Total housing units: 721,830 Maine has seen one of the largest decreases in building permits in the past six years. This is unsurprising as home sales in general declined substantially. Home sales for June 2011 decreased 21.39% from June 2010, according to the Maine Association of Realtors. The state's median sales price also decreased 1.37% over this same period. According to numbers from the Census Bureau, Maine has the highest vacancy rate in the country, reaching 22.8% in 2010. However, this number also includes empty vacation houses. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
Building permits/total housing units: 0.14% Decline in building permits 2005-2011: -61.85% (12th smallest) Building permits 2011 YTD: 11,033 Total housing units: 8,108,103 New York State's housing market is among the largest in the country. As a result, the number of permits is minuscule when compared to the state's total housing units. Although new home sales decreased in the first half of 2011 from 2010, the number of permits actually increased slightly during that period, from 10,189 in 2010. This is significantly lower than 2005's 28,921 permits. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
Building permits/total housing units: 0.12% Decline in building permits 2005-2011: 69.55% (24th smallest) Building permits 2011 YTD: 3,402 Total housing units: 2,808,254 Despite having a healthy economy compared to much of the country, Massachusetts' housing market is beginning to face serious troubles. In June 2011, sales of single-family homes in the state decreased 23.5% from the year before, reaching the lowest level since 1991, according to the Warren Group, a New England real estate research firm. With so few home sales, it follows that not many new homes are being built. Year-to-date, building permits for 2011 are about one quarter of what they were in 2005. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
Building permits/total housing units: 0.12% Decline in building permits 2005-2011: -76.61% (12th largest) Building permits 2011 YTD: 6,184 Total housing units: 5,127,508 Ohio has suffered, and continues to suffer, greatly from the housing crisis. Over 8,000 homes were foreclosed in July 2011, the ninth-largest amount in the country, according to real estate company RealtyTrac. With such a high foreclosure rate, currently at one in every 608 housing units, housing is already too inexpensive for people to want to build. Ohio has therefore had one of the greatest decreases in building permits in the country over the past six years. Median existing home sales are also down in many areas of the state, according to data from the National Association of Realtors. In Toledo, prices are down 17% from one year ago, the third largest rate in the country. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
Building permits/total housing units: 0.09% Decline in building permits 2005-2011: -74.06% (14th largest) Building permits 2011 YTD: 1,403 Total housing units: 1,487,891 Connecticut has had one of the greatest declines in the number of new building permits in the country. This trend saw a small turnaround in June -- the first monthly year-over-year gain in 2011 in new construction, according to the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. However, the Hartford Courant reports that for "the first six months of the year, residential construction was down 30 percent compared with the same period in 2010." June was also the first increase in home construction in five years. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
Building permits/total housing units: 0.09 Decline in building permits 2005-2011: -82.19% (7th largest) Building permits 2011 YTD: 4,250 Total housing units: 4,532,233 Michigan is one of the states that has suffered the most from the recession. The state's unemployment rate peaked around 15% in 2010. It is now at 10.5%, which is still significantly higher than the national average of 9.2%. The state has a vacancy rate of just under 15%, which is one of the highest in the country. New building permits have also decreased by over 80% since 2005, also one of the highest rates in the country. The state may now be more focused on tearing down old buildings than building new ones. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
Building permits/total housing units: 0.09% Decline in building permits 2005-2011: -84.18% (3rd largest) Building permits 2011 YTD: 4,897 Total housing units: 5,296,715 Illinois has seen an almost 85% decrease in new housing permits since 2005. This is the third largest drop in the country. There are a number of initiatives being made across the state to improve the housing markets. In Chicago, for instance, Mayor Emanuel has made a number of changes to increase the speed with which building permits are issued. Additionally, a "Micro-Market Recovery Program" has been introduced to slow the city's foreclosure rate. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
Building permits/total housing units: 0.09% Decline in building permits 2005-2011: -72.71% (17th largest) Building permits 2011 YTD: 774 Total housing units: 881,917 West Virginia's decline in building permits has slowed to almost a crawl. In the first six months of 2005 the state issued almost 3,000 permits. For the first half of 2011, that amount decreased to 774. If every permit were to result in a new housing structure, those homes would represent less than 0.1% of the total housing units in the state. Despite all this, construction is one area that is benefiting the state. According to the organization WorkForce West Virginia, 700 construction jobs were added in-state this past July -- the largest amount of jobs added in the private sector. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
Building permits/total housing units: 0.07% Decline in building permits 2005-2011: -70.81% (22nd largest) Building permits 2011 YTD: 312 Total housing units: 463,388 Foreclosure filings increased 4% in Rhode Island from the first six months of 2010 to the first six months of 2011, according to RealtyTrac. Foreclosures dropped by 29% for that same period on the national level. Rhode Island home sales decreased 20% from one year ago in the second-quarter, according to the Rhode Island Association of Realtors. Additionally, median home prices have dropped 2%. These numbers indicate that Rhode Island's housing market is not recovering at the same pace as the majority of the country. For this first six months of this year, the state has issued a mere 312 building permits, the smallest number in the country. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.
Follow Jed Kolko on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JedKolko