The Riskiest Housing Markets In America

Tyler Durden's picture

As homeownership rates tumble, perhaps it is not just the stagnation of income or piling up of 'other debts' disabling any organic buying frenzy; perhaps, as Bloomberg breaks down, it is the realization that real-estate is nothing less than another boom-bust roller-coaster ride. ??When so much wealth is tied up in one asset, the risk -- or stability -- of a local market can mean a lot to a homeowner and Bloomberg has quantified the 'riskiest' (and most stable) home markets in America... not Vegas, not Phoenix, and not LA...


Full Breakdown here


And the stablest real estate markets?

5. Raleigh, North Carolina
Risk of loss: 9%
Worst year: -5% (July 1981 - June 1982)

4. Nashville, Tennessee
Risk of loss: 9%
Worst year: -4% (July 2010 - June 2011)

3. Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky
Risk of loss: 3%
Worst year: -3% (April 1981 - March 1982)

2. Pittsburgh
Risk of loss: 0%
Worst year: -7% (July 1980 - June 1981)

1. Buffalo, New York
Risk of loss: 0%
Worst year: -4% (July 1994 - June 1995)

Methodology: For each of the 50 largest housing markets, analyzed average home prices over 117 rolling five-year periods since 1979, as far back as reliable data go. The “risk of loss” is the percentage of those periods that created negative returns for homeowners. In the case of ties between markets, those with the bigger drop in their worst years were ranked as riskier.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SethDealer's picture

Problem with housing market is we have too many people without skin in the game. this is going to be real ugly when it bursts. They are still selling homes to people with 0 down

tempo's picture

Orange County Ca safe housing market as more people flock to So. CA. No more highways or mass transit will ever be built in this area so land near job center will continue to increase. As Traffic and commute times increase, housing prices near jobs increase.

jbvtme's picture

brave new world commin right up

boogerbently's picture


The BROKE state that will spend $50 million making the Golden Gate Bridge "suicide proof", as if ANYTHING can prevent serious suicide attempts !!!!

Anyone who wants to commit suicide should be allowed to.

The same brain fart, that allows that, could present as the next serial shooter.

sylviasays's picture

"Orange County Ca safe housing market as more people flock to So. CA."

Until the next big earthquake occurs... 

Too Big 2's picture

Your analysis is spot on except for the fact that the employment centers are shrinking, albeit slowly, due to businesses that are relocating out of state.  Let's not forget that CA is one of (if not) the least friendly states to run a business. 

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Skin in the game? I wish I hadn't had skin in the game some years ago.

As it was, I lost my 25% of "skin" when the Florida market tanked by 45%.

Talk to me about "skin". I dare you.

Seasmoke's picture

So buy up every house in Buffalo and Pittsburgh , risk-free ??

ParkAveFlasher's picture

I think they confused "risk" with "reward".

cynicalskeptic's picture

I suspect taht Buffalo is 'stable' because NOTHING ever sells in Buffalo.  Economy is in the crapper - no jobs, no demand, no sales.  You can't get more 'stable' than total inertia and inactivity.

ac3's picture

Only thing worth buying in Buffalo is Nick Tahou's Garbage Plate.......

SethDealer's picture

when i was in mortgage business we used to say "hey, you have perfect credit, you've never paid anyone!"

max2205's picture

Zillow now there's a stock

Flakmeister's picture

I'd venture that waterfront condos in Miami are the riskiest....

Hulk's picture

I see what you did there !!!

Calmyourself's picture


We can fix that Flak, NOAA decided that 1936 was the hottest year after all, I guess Miami is back on the menu so is  Al Gores beach home in CA, right.. right..

Uh, Oh I checked NOAA is not peer reviewed, never mind,   ha

Flakmeister's picture

If Anthony Watts told you that Santa Claus existed, you would believe him.

All they did was reanalyse some data and conclude that July 1936 was the hottest month, not year...

By all of 0.03 degress....

And that changes jackshit in the big picture...

zaphod42's picture

And, of course, it was only warmest in the US of A.  1936 did not include Alaska as a state.  Not sure about 2012.  So, bit deal.  Local weather, not climate.  Look out the window.  OMG it is cool and rainy in July.  Must be a new ice age!


Flakmeister's picture

Are you truly that dumb of a hedgetard? Do you understand what "Contiguous" means?

BTW, here are the warmest 12 month periods for USA....

No hint of 1936...

Calmyourself's picture

NOAA, disagree with them not me they made the change flaktard...

Flakmeister's picture

Oh, I would say that NOAA and I are on the same page...

You, on the other hand...

Jack Napier's picture

Solar cycles don't care what you or NOAA think. One day it will be hotter than ever, another day it will be cooler than ever. Messing with the ionosphere is arguably the reason for extremes in either direction. Global whatever'ing is a waste of brainwaves. Life adapts. It makes no difference.

Flakmeister's picture

Blaming HAARP is the quintessential expression of Hedgetardery...

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Can we please stop feeding this dipshit global warming troll? I'm getting sick of having to scroll past all this wasted space.

dvfco's picture

I don't mean to cause a problem here, but where do the summers of, say, 2,000 B.C. to 2000 A.D. fit into this chart?  I'm wondering because I know there was an ice age where glaciers came down to Long Island at one point.  I also know that there are many thousands of animals encased in the ice further north that had lived in moderate climes.  So, are you 100% sure we'll never have another ice age on earth?  Also, what if I'd prefer a warmer earth?  Maybe, I'd like to farm in Canada in November.

I'm confused.   Who is really smart enough to fix this?  How can we give tens of billions of dollars to people who have no known way to fix anything without the guarantee that they won't make other things worse?

If someone is sure they know what's wrong and are positive of how we can fix it, sure, let's let them fuck with the world environment and do whatever they think might work.  

In the mean time, let's shut down pipelines, close coal mines and put 100,000s of people out of work in the U.S., just so they can mine in every other country without our competition.  

And, let's not build Thorium reactors.  Finally, let's not ask the Navy if they can reproduce the reactors they have in their submarines that seem to last, well, kinda, a long time.  I'd hate to have whatever is in every one of our nuclear subs on the outskirts of town powering my village.  They sure seem safe for the 100 or so sailors on-board thee things 365 days/year for the past 50+ years.  What's up?

Flakmeister's picture

Read closely, responsible for ~5% what is observed... 

Learn more and know less's picture

Why so much climate change denial on the ZH message boards? 

Climate change is largely irrelevant, we will suck all the fossil fuels out of the earth as quickly as we can and burn them regardless of what the politicians claim they want to see, so in sense climate change dinialists are actually right, it is a plot to get more tax revenue.

They might also be wrong about the truth of climate change, and if the predictions are true will threaten many things amongst them farming yields and global food production. 

I am not a climate scientist, but from a layman's persepcetive three things seem clear:

1. We are running low on natural resources - especially energy from fossil fuels

2. We are f##king up our environment in a miarid of ways, plundering our future for the sake of fiat paper, reducing the planet's carrying capacity. The predictions of the Club of Rome seem to be spot on.

3. The climate is changing, the speed of which has been linked to emissions of gases and reduction of forest cover, although the climate is way more complex than we can model, so there is a lack of conclusive detail.

When you take these three together the obvious conculsion is that as a planet, we need to reduce the amount of resources we use, with a special emphasis on energy. The USA was the sole superpower between 1990 - 2010 and was in a position to lead, which would have ensured beneficial terms, but instead protected vested interests (0.01%) not the overall population of the USA.

The rest of the population were fed missimformation, including that climate change was all a government plot, the reverse of reality, (although government has used CC to justify certain things).

The message has been "don't wory about anything, just get into more debt and consume more of what you don't need"

In terms of policy objectives we really should be preparing for a world with less resources, which would mean:

1. the dominance of private car use for transport to serve low density suburbs makes no sense and needs to be fixed

2. overall encourage lower per-capita consumption of all goods

3. Population reduction 

The ironic thing is that we will soon get all three

STP's picture

L.A. might not be at the top, but California accounts for 30% of the total!!!

Bennie Noakes's picture

Add to that the risk that LA could slip into the sea at any time and is patrolled by gangs of trigger-happy cops.

Bill of Rights's picture
Govt may cut 2% import duty on gold in budget: Bank of America Merrill Lynch

seek's picture

I'm stunned Phoenix and Vegas aren't higher, and then looked at the methodology.

In short, I can speak to the Phoenix market, and when it imploded the banks were deliberately witholding inventory and gaming the reported sales prices with off-record deals so as to not impact the value of the inventory they held with actual price discovery. So the methodology of this is using pricing that's been manipulated higher (like every other market) in determining the "low" price for the volatility computation.

In a nutshell, the data is crap and so is the conclusion and the most volatile markets are probably some in the middle rather than those listed due to manipulation.

smithcreek's picture

The data is beyond crap.  Take Buffalo NY.  The worst YOY decline was 4%.  Whoop-de-fucking doo.  If you are ok with losing 3-4% a year for 20-30 years until the property is worth virtually (or in some cases literally) nothing, then sure, stability is great.  If on the other hand you can handle prices going UP once in a while as well as down, best look somewhere else.

ugmug's picture

I live in Buffalo, New York. We have one the highest poverty rates in the country, one of the oldest populations, the most segregated, and we stay afloat simply because of all the cross border shoppers and medical trips by all the Canadians.

DOT's picture

You forgot to mention the wings!


Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Don't forget beef on weck!! Tasty.

ugmug's picture

The beef on weck has long disappeared.

Buffalo is now the champion of Friday Fish Fry dinners. Buffalo flies in more fish for our Friday Fish Fry dinners than any other US city.

dvfco's picture

You guys are like, so pre-Vatican II.  Rock-on you Latin Catholics - eat your Friday fish.  Who cares if it is Lent or not!  Get that fish before Fukishima get it.

However, I think my family and friends in Rochester could keep up wth your Friday Fish Fry, any day of the week.  (sorry, couldn't resist.)

ugmug's picture

The one aspect about Buffalo that I loved, but now has disappeared, were the  neighborhood taverns. The corner 'gin mill' was the poor man's country club.





ugmug's picture

Buffalo has so many pizza and chicken wing restaurants littering our neighborhoods that it looks like a teenager with severe acne.

dvfco's picture

Buffalo is like a formerly giant, but no deflated fart cushion.  It deflated about 3% per year for the last 30 or 40 years, but aside from little tiny farts, there's much air left to squeeze out of it, no matter how hard you try.

It seems like values have regressed to the value of farm land, with the houses erected on each lot being 90% economically depreciated.

NidStyles's picture

Sensationalist nonsense. Most of Phoenix's water for the next two years is sitting above ground in the reservoir system. We survived 12 years of drought in the late 90's and early 00's. I think we will be fine.

seek's picture

Yeah, it's primarily the Ag/CAP water that'd be at risk due to the Colorado running dry.

Not to mention most of northern/northeastern AZ is sitting on top of a massive aquifer that stretches from NM to OR. A pipeline would be a hassle but doable.

For all its faults the Arizona government really isn't that bad at water management, especially compared to California.

_disengage_'s picture

As I point out below, there are solutions that aren't as ridiculous as piping in water (that will never run out /s) with a pipeline. specifically for the AZ/NM area.

Howard Finnel, PA Yeoman, David Holmgren, Bill Mollison, Geoff Lawton, Brad Landcaster, Sepp holtzer, and too many others I can't remember have solved (not are working on, have solved) these problems - it seems there is no will, political or otherwise, to implement solutions.

I suspect it is because "we" can't see beyond the end of our noses'/next election cycle.

SmackDaddy's picture

one and a quarter inch of rain so far this year in phoenix (all in March)....  you had better catch every last fucking drop!

_disengage_'s picture

Real late on this, but have to address it.

You "need" about 4" per year to restart a desert. Once you set up the system, you begin recharging the aquafirs (albeit slowly).

Droughts occur about ever 10-20 years (differnt areas different cycles) so if you caught all the rain during a good decade, you'd be able to tap your groundwater during the droughts for an emergency while still growing your underground reserves.

Your angle is typical NOW OR NEVER thinking. We will never get anywhere unless we learn to see beyond our noses. Swales today do not solve the problem today; Swales today do solve the problem within a few years and prevent subsequent problems from reoccurring. I think this used to be called "investing in infrastructure".

Flakmeister's picture

Please let it be that you are one of the ones that dries up and shrivels away...

BTW, Las Vegas is scraping the bottom the lake so to speak