Buying A Home More Affordable Than Renting In 54 Percent Of U.S. Housing Markets

But 64 Percent of Population Live in Markets More Affordable to Rent Than Buy; Least Affordable Rental Markets Led by Counties in Northern California, DC, Brooklyn; Most Affordable Rental Markets in Alabama, Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee

Irvine, CA – Jan. 11, 2018 (PRNewswire) ATTOM Data Solutions, curator of the nation’s largest multi-sourced property database, today released its 2018 Rental Affordability Report, which shows that buying a median-priced home is more affordable than renting a three-bedroom property in 240 of 447 U.S. counties analyzed for the report — 54 percent.

ATTOM Logo

The analysis incorporated recently released fair market rent data for 2018 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics along with public record sales deed data from ATTOM Data Solutions in 447 U.S. counties with sufficient home sales data (see full methodology below).

“Although buying is still more affordable than renting in the majority of U.S. housing markets, that majority is shrinking as home price appreciation continues to outpace rental growth in most areas,” said Daren Blomquist, vice president at ATTOM Data Solutions. “Renting has clearly become the lesser of two housing affordability evils in many major population centers, with renting more affordable than buying in 76 percent of counties that have a population of 1 million or more. And when broken down by population rather than number of markets, this data shows that the majority of the U.S. population — 64 percent — live in markets that are more affordable to rent than to buy.”

Renting more affordable than buying in nation’s most populated counties
Counter to the overall trend, renting is more affordable than buying a home in the nation’s 14 most populated counties and in 30 of 39 counties with a population of 1 million or more (76 percent) — including Los Angeles County, California; Cook County (Chicago), Illinois; Harris County (Houston), Texas; Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona; and San Diego County, California.

Other markets with a population of more than 1 million where it is more affordable to rent than to buy a home included counties in Miami, New York City, Seattle, Las Vegas, San Jose, San Francisco and Boston.

“The thing about this data that concerns me the most is that it is now more affordable to rent in the greater Seattle area than buy. Even with solid income growth, the rapid rise in home prices is keeping many would-be buyers out of ownership,” said Matthew Gardner, chief economist with Windermere Real Estate, covering the Seattle market. “To make matters worse, rapid rental rate growth in the core King County market is forcing many renters to look farther out to find something they can afford. Seattle needs considerably more affordable housing for renters and home buyers alike. Unless something changes, the area will remain very expensive, pricing many buyers out of the market.”

Among the 39 U.S. counties analyzed in the report with a population of 1 million or more, the nine where it is more affordable to buy a home than rent included Tarrant County (Dallas), Texas; Broward County (Miami), Florida and Bexar County, (San Antonio) Texas.

Least affordable rental markets in Northern California, DC, Brooklyn
The report shows that renting a three-bedroom property requires an average of 38.8 percent of weekly wages across the 447 counties analyzed for the report.

The least affordable markets for renting were Marin County, California (79.5 percent of average wages to rent); Spotsylvania County (Washington, D.C. area), Virginia (75.5 percent) and Honolulu County, Hawaii (71.9 percent).

Most affordable rental markets in Alabama, Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee
The most affordable markets for renting were Madison County (Huntsville), Alabama (22.3 percent of average wages to rent); Tazewell County (Peoria), Illinois (23.6 percent); and Greene County (Dayton), Ohio (24.1 percent).

Rents rise faster than wages in 60 percent of markets
Average fair market rents rose faster than average weekly wages in 266 of the 447 counties analyzed in the report (60 percent), including Los Angeles County, California; Cook County, Illinois and Harris County, Texas.

Home prices rising faster than rents in 59 percent of markets
Median home prices rose faster than average fair market rents in 263 of the 447 counties analyzed in the report, including Los Angeles County, California; Cook County, Illinois and San Diego County, California.

Full Report & Methodology

About ATTOM Data Solutions
ATTOM Data Solutions is the curator of the ATTOM Data Warehouse, a multi-sourced national property database that blends property tax, deed, mortgage, foreclosure, environmental risk, natural hazard, health hazards, neighborhood characteristics and other property characteristic data for more than 150 million U.S. residential and commercial properties. The ATTOM Data Warehouse delivers actionable including bulk file licenses, APIs and customized reports.

Media:

Christine Stricker
714.873.4275
christine.stricker@attomdata.com

Data and Report Licensing:
949.502.8313
datareports@attomdata.com

Cities Where The Majority of Americans Can’t Afford a Home

In many large cities, more than 50% of households cannot afford a home

Los Angeles, CA – Jan. 2, 2018 (PRNewswire) Six cities on the U.S. coasts have a 70 percent or higher percentage of households that can’t afford a home, a new study found.

Go Banking Rates Logo

Personal finance website GOBankingRates used the median home listing price in the 100 largest cities to calculate typical monthly mortgage payments. Using the rule that no more than 30 percent of income should go toward housing, GOBankingRates calculated the income needed to afford a mortgage. Researchers then compared this income to the number of households with income equal to or greater than that amount.

For full study results and more details on methodology, visit: Places Where 50% of Americans Can’t Afford a Home

Top Five Cities With the Highest Percentage of Households That Can’t Afford a Home

1. San Francisco, CA

Median listing price: $1,199,000
Percentage of households that can’t afford a home: 76.7 percent

2. Boston, MA

Median listing price: $725,000
Percentage of households that can’t afford a home: 75.7 percent

3. Miami, FL

Median listing price: $450,000
Percentage of households that can’t afford a home: 74.3 percent

4. Long Beach, CA

Median listing price: $549,900
Percentage of households that can’t afford a home: 73.5 percent

5. Los Angeles, CA

Median listing price: $749,000
Percentage of households that can’t afford a home: 72.9 percent

Real Estate Chart

Additional Study Insights

  • Perhaps unsurprising due to its high real estate prices, six of the top 10 cities with the highest percentage of households that can’t afford homes are in California.
  • Some surprising cities made the final list. In New Orleans, the median home price is $300,000 but 65.4 percent of households can’t afford a home because wages are lower.
  • Median home prices in Oakland, Calif., are half as expensive as they are across the bay in San Francisco.

About GOBankingRates

GOBankingRates.com is a personal finance news and features website dedicated to helping visitors live a richer life. From tips on saving money, to investing for retirement or finding a good interest rate, GOBankingRates helps turn financial goals into milestones and money dreams into realities. Its content is regularly featured on top-tier media outlets, including MSN, MONEY, AOL Finance, CBS MoneyWatch, Business Insider and dozens of others. GOBankingRates specializes in connecting consumers with the financial institutions and products that best match their needs. Start your journey toward a rich mind and full wallet with us here.

Contact

Kim Dahlgren, Media Relations
GOBankingRates.com
kimd@consumertrack.com
(310) 297-9233 x138

Worsening Affordability Costs Renters $2,000 per Year

– Income growth stagnated as rents continued to climb, forcing renters to pay an increasing share of their income on rent

– The median U.S. rent requires 29.1 percent of the median monthly household income. In pre-bubble years – 1985-2000 – rent required just 25.8 percent of the median income.

– Renters in 34 of the nation’s 35 largest markets have to spend a larger share of income on rent now than they did in pre-bubble years.

– Homeowners spend $3,300 less per year on the typical mortgage payment than they would if mortgage payments required the same share of income as they did historically.

Seattle, WA – Nov. 29, 2017 (PRNewswire) Rising rents are eating up an increasingly large share of American incomes, costing the typical renter $2,000 per year.

Zillow Logo

Currently, the median U.S. rental requires 29.1 percent of the median monthly income. However, in the years leading up to the housing bubble, renters spent just 25.8 percent of their income on housing. That means renters are spending $1,957 more on rent in 2017 than they would be if the percentage had remained the same.

By contrast, the typical homeowner spends less of their income on house payments than they did previously – saving about $3,300 per year on the typical home. Mortgage payments take up a smaller share of income now than they did historically – 15.4 percent in 2017 Q3, compared to 21 percent previously.

In expensive markets like San Jose, renters are spending nearly 39 percent of their incomes on rent, compared to 26 percent historically, which translates to $13,525 this year, more than any other metro Zillow analyzed. Renters in San Francisco are similarly affected by worsening rent affordability, spending $11,236 more on rents than they would have if the cost of rent had remained proportional to income.

While rent affordability has worsened in most U.S. metros, rents in Pittsburgh have remained mostly level over the past several years, allowing incomes to keep up and even outpace rent appreciation. Renters in the metro actually spend a smaller share of income on rent than they did in pre-bubble years, meaning they are spending about $3,400 less per year than they would have at the historical rate.

“In most markets, current renters are at a disadvantage compared to years past because paying the rent takes up a much larger share of their income than it did before,” said Zillow® Chief Economist Dr. Svenja Gudell. “For many people, that can mean less cash to put toward paying off student debt, building an emergency fund, or saving for retirement. For those hoping to buy a home, it could be a significant part of their down payment. For parents, it could mean additional childcare or a family vacation. This is another example of how much worse rent affordability has gotten.”

Younger generations want to buy homes, and have traditional views on the value of homeownership. However, with home prices climbing, first-time buyers have to save more than $100 a month for a down payment just to keep up with rising home costs[i]. Low interest rates mean monthly mortgage payments are relatively affordable, but the majority of renters cite that initial down payment as the main barrier to buying a home[ii].

Chart

Zillow

Zillow is the leading real estate and rental marketplace dedicated to empowering consumers with data, inspiration and knowledge around the place they call home, and connecting them with the best local professionals who can help. In addition, Zillow operates an industry-leading economics and analytics bureau led by Zillow’s Chief Economist Dr. Svenja Gudell. Dr. Gudell and her team of economists and data analysts produce extensive housing data and research covering more than 450 markets at Zillow Real Estate Research. Zillow also sponsors the quarterly Zillow Home Price Expectations Survey, which asks more than 100 leading economists, real estate experts and investment and market strategists to predict the path of the Zillow Home Value Index over the next five years. Launched in 2006, Zillow is owned and operated by Zillow Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: Z and ZG), and headquartered in Seattle.

Zillow is a registered trademark of Zillow, Inc.

[i] http://zillow.mediaroom.com/2017-11-09-Home-Buyers-Need-to-Save-up-to-600-a-Month-Just-to-Keep-Up-with-Rising-Home-Prices
[ii] https://www.zillow.com/research/down-payment-hurdle-zhar-14790/

Where Millennials Can and Can’t Actually Afford to Buy Homes

With rising housing costs and crippling student loan debt, where can millennials actually afford to buy?

Los Angeles, CA – Nov. 14, 2017 (PRNewswire) Colorado and Oregon are two of the least affordable states for millennials to buy a home, a new study found.

Go Banking Rates Logo

Unsurprisingly, these states also rank as two of the most popular to move to for the age group.

Personal finance website GOBankingRates considered the median list prices for homes across all 50 states. Based on the median millennial income of $60,932 and a 20 percent monthly savings rate, GOBankingRates calculated the amount of time it would take a millennial to afford a 20 percent down payment, as well as the estimated monthly mortgage payment.

Real Estate Infographic

For full study results and more details on methodology, visit: Where Millennials Can and Can’t Actually Afford to Buy Homes.

Best States for Millennials to Buy a Home

1. West Virginia

  • Median list price: $150,000
  • Estimated time to save for a down payment: 2.5 years
  • Monthly mortgage payment: $693

2. Ohio

  • Median list price: $154,900
  • Estimated time to save for a down payment: 2.5 years
  • Monthly mortgage payment: $704

3. Arkansas

  • Median list price: $164,900
  • Estimated time to save for a down payment: 2.7 years
  • Monthly mortgage payment: $757

4. Indiana

  • Median list price: $167,000
  • Estimated time to save for a down payment: 2.7 years
  • Monthly mortgage payment: $757

5. Iowa

  • Median list price: $169,000
  • Estimated time to save for a down payment: 2.8 years
  • Monthly mortgage payment: $766

Worst States for Millennials to Buy a Home

1. Hawaii

  • Median list price: $599,000
  • Estimated time to save for a down payment: 9.8 years
  • Monthly mortgage payment: $2,584

2. California

  • Median list price: $499,950
  • Estimated time to save for a down payment: 8.2 years
  • Monthly mortgage payment: $2,168

3. Massachusetts

  • Median list price: $419,900
  • Estimated time to save for a down payment: 6.9 years
  • Monthly mortgage payment: $1,833

4. Colorado

  • Median list price: $408,068
  • Estimated time to save for a down payment: 6.7 years
  • Monthly mortgage payment: $1,780

5. Oregon

  • Median list price: $352,000
  • Estimated time to save for a down payment: 5.8 years
  • Monthly mortgage payment: $1,551

Additional Study Insights

  • According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Texas, Washington and Colorado are the top three states where millennials are moving, though none top the list of places to buy.
  • The three cities losing the most millennials are New York, San Diego and Miami.
  • The Bay Area continues to be a hot spot for millennials, with San Francisco and Oakland both in the top 10 cities millennials are moving, despite the high cost of housing.

About GOBankingRates

GOBankingRates.com is a personal finance news and features website dedicated to helping visitors live a richer life. From tips on saving money, to investing for retirement or finding a good interest rate, GOBankingRates helps turn financial goals into milestones and money dreams into realities. Its content is regularly featured on top-tier media outlets, including MSN, MONEY, AOL Finance, CBS MoneyWatch, Business Insider and dozens of others. GOBankingRates specializes in connecting consumers with the financial institutions and products that best match their needs. Start your journey toward a rich mind and full wallet with us here.

Contact

Kim Dahlgren, Media Relations
GOBankingRates.com
kimd@consumertrack.com
(310) 297-9233 x138

84 Percent of Americans See Homeownership as Good Investment, Affordability a Growing Concern

Washington, D.C. – July 12, 2017 (nar.realtor) According to the National Association of Realtors®’ 2017 National Housing Pulse Survey, concerns over housing affordability show clear demographic divides especially among unmarried and non-white Americans. More than five out of 10 unmarried and non-white Americans view the lack of available affordable housing as a big problem, compared to only 40 percent of married and white Americans.

NAR logo

The survey, measures consumers’ attitudes and concerns about housing issues in the nation’s 25 largest metropolitan statistical areas and found that 84 percent of Americans now believe that purchasing a home is a good financial decision – the highest number since 2007. Yet six in 10 said that they are concerned about affordability and the rising cost of buying a home or renting in their area. Housing affordability was ranked fourth in the top-five issues Americans face in their area behind the lack of affordable health care; low wages and debt making it hard to save; and heroin and opioid drug abuse, and ahead of job layoffs and employment.

Nationally, 44 percent of respondents categorized the lack of available affordable housing as a very big or fairly big problem. In the top 25 densest markets, more than half see the lack of affordable housing as a big problem, an increase of 11 percentage points from the 2015 National Housing Pulse Survey. Low-income Americans, renters and young women most acutely feel the housing pinch. There is also greater concern about affordable housing among the working class (65 percent) than for public servants such as teachers, firefighters or police (55 percent).

“Despite the growing concern over affordable housing, this survey makes it clear that a strong majority still believe in homeownership and aspire to own a home of their own. Building equity, wanting a stable and safe environment, and having the freedom to choose their neighborhood remain the top reasons to own a home,” says NAR president William E. Brown, a second-generation Realtor® from Alamo, California and founder of Investment Properties.

Eight out of 10 believe that the most important financial reason to own a home is that the money spent on housing goes towards building equity rather than to a property owner. Paying off a mortgage and owning a home by the time you retire is the next most important financial reason for buying a home followed by ownership being a good investment opportunity to build long-term wealth and increase net worth.

When asked about the amount of down payment needed for a mortgage, four in 10 respondents believe that a down payment of 15 percent or more is necessary. Seventy percent feel that a reasonable down payment should be 10 percent or less, according to the survey. Misperceptions about higher down payment requirements were most prevalent in bigger cities and by older adults.

Apparent confusion about down payment requirements most likely added to non-owners concerns about affordability. NAR’s Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers found that the median down payment for first-time buyers has been 6 percent for three straight years and 14 percent for repeat buyers in three of the past four years.

Over 50 percent of respondents strongly agree that homeownership helps build safe and secure neighborhoods and provides a stable and safe environment for children and family members.

The survey also found that four in 10 Americans say paying their rent or mortgage is a strain on their budget. Those most likely to say their mortgage is a strain have incomes under $60,000, are residents of New York City or the Pacific coast, are under the age of 50 and non-white. Just over half, 51 percent, of respondents said they were willing to strain their budget for a better living environment and would pick a neighborhood with better schools and job opportunities even if housing prices are a bigger strain on their budget. Those most willing to strain their budget are disproportionately married, upper income and living in the suburbs. Overspending on homes is more prevalent in Northeastern cities (36 percent), the Mountain West (34 percent) and the Pacific coast (33 percent).

The 2017 National Housing Pulse Survey is conducted by American Strategies and Myers Research & Strategic Services for NAR’s Housing Opportunity Program, which aims to position, educate and help Realtors® promote housing opportunities in their community, in both the rental and homeownership sectors of the market. The telephone survey polled 1,500 adults nationwide and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

The National Association of Realtors®, “The Voice for Real Estate,” is America’s largest trade association, representing 1.2 million members involved in all aspects of the residential and commercial real estate industries.

Media Contact:

Cole Henry
(202) 383-1290
Email

Affordability, Tight Supply Cause Vacation Home Sales to Plummet in 2016; Investment Sales Climb 4.5%

Washington, D.C. – April 11, 2017 (nar.realtor) Last year’s strongest pace of home sales in a decade included a sizeable drop in activity from vacation buyers and a jump from individual investors, according to an annual second-home survey released today by the National Association of Realtors®. The survey additionally found that vacation and investment buyers in 2016 were more likely to take out a mortgage and use their property as a short-term rental.

NAR logo

NAR’s 2017 Investment and Vacation Home Buyers Survey(1), covering existing- and new-home transactions in 2016, revealed that vacation home purchases last year descended to an estimated 721,000, down 21.6 percent from 2015 (920,000) and the lowest since 2013 (717,000).

Investment-home sales in 2016 rose 4.5 percent to 1.14 million from 1.09 million in 2015. Owner-occupied purchases jumped 12.5 percent to 4.21 million last year from 3.74 million in 2015 – the highest level since 2006 (4.82 million).

Lawrence Yun

Lawrence Yun

Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, says vacation sales in 2016 tumbled for the second consecutive year and have fallen 36 percent from their recent peak high in 2014 (1.13 million). “In several markets in the South and West – the two most popular destinations for vacation buyers – home prices have soared in recent years because substantial buyer demand from strong job growth continues to outstrip the supply of homes for sale,” he said. “With fewer bargain-priced properties to choose from and a growing number of traditional buyers, finding a home for vacation purposes became more difficult and less affordable last year.”

Added Yun, “The volatility seen in the financial markets in late 2015 through the early part of last year also put a dent in sales as some affluent households with money in stocks likely refrained from buying or delayed plans until after the election.”

Tight inventory conditions pushed the median sales price of both vacation and investment homes last year to levels not seen in roughly a decade. The median vacation home price was $200,000, up 4.2 percent from 2015 ($192,000) and the highest since 2006 (also $200,000). The median investment-home sales price was $155,000, up 8.0 percent from 2015 ($143,500) and the highest since 2005 ($183,500).

With home prices steadily rising, an increasing share of second-home buyers financed their purchase last year. The share of vacation buyers who paid fully in cash diminished to 28 percent (38 percent in 2015), while cash purchases by investors decreased to 35 percent from 39 percent in 2015 and 41 percent in 2014.

“Sales to individual investors reached their highest level since 2012 (1.20 million) as investors took advantage of record low mortgage rates and recognized the sizeable demand for renting in their market as renters struggle to become homeowners,” said Yun. “The ability to generate rental income or remodel a home to put back on a market with tight inventory is giving investors increased confidence in their ability to see strong returns in their home purchase.”

Vacation sales accounted for 12 percent of all transactions in 2016, which was the lowest share since 2012 (11 percent) and down from 16 percent in 2015. The portion of investment sales remained unchanged for the third consecutive year at 19 percent, and owner-occupied purchases increased to 70 percent (65 percent in 2015).

Greater interest in short-term rentals; South most popular destination

Given the rising popularity of short-term rentals in locales throughout the country, it’s no surprise there were slightly more investment and vacation buyers renting their property for less than 30 days. Forty-four percent of investors (42 percent in 2015) and 29 percent of vacation buyers (24 percent in 2015) did or tried to rent their property last year and plan to do so in 2017. Twenty-one percent of investment buyers and 15 percent of vacation buyers did not rent their home for short-term purposes last year but plan to try it in 2017.

Vacation buyers’ typically earned $89,900 ($103,700 in 2015), while investment buyers had a household income of $82,000 ($95,800 in 2015). Both were most likely to purchase a single-family home in the South, with vacation buyers preferring a beach location and investors choosing a suburban area.

The top two reasons for buying a vacation home were to use for vacations or as a family retreat (42 percent) and for future retirement (18 percent), while investors mostly bought to generate income through renting (42 percent) and for potential price appreciation (16 percent).

NAR’s 2017 Investment and Vacation Home Buyers Survey, conducted in March 2017, surveyed a sample of households that had purchased any type of residential real estate during 2016. The survey sample was drawn from an online panel of U.S. adults monitored and maintained by an established survey research firm. A total of 2,099 qualified adults responded to the survey.

The 2017 Investment and Vacation Home Buyers Survey can be ordered by calling 800-874-6500, or online at www.nar.realtor/prodser.nsf/Research. The report is free to NAR members and accredited media and costs $149.95 for non-members.

The National Association of Realtors®, “The Voice for Real Estate,” is America’s largest trade association, representing 1.2 million members involved in all aspects of the residential and commercial real estate industries.

# # #

1. Vacation homes are recreational property purchased primarily for the buyer’s (or their family’s) personal use, while investment homes are residential property purchased primarily to rent to others, or to hold for other financial or investment purposes. Sales data excludes institutional investment activity.

Home sales were calculated based on a proportion of buyers who bought each respective home type—vacation, investment, and primary residence. The number of purchases for each housing type were calculated using the total number of existing home sales and new homes in 2016. To calculate the difference in the number of purchases in 2015 to 2016, the percent change of each housing type purchased was calculated.

Media Contact:

Adam DeSanctis
(202) 383-1178
Email