Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RE: Shiller Weighs In

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RE: Shiller Weighs In



    A New Housing Boom? Don’t Count on It

    By ROBERT J. SHILLER

    WE’RE beginning to hear noises that we’ve reached a major turning point in the housing market — and that, with interest rates so low, this is a rare opportunity to buy. But are such observations on target?

    It would be comforting if they were. Yet the unfortunate truth is that the tea leaves don’t clearly suggest any particular path for prices, either up or down.

    On the one hand, there were sharp price increases in 2012, with the S.&P./Case-Shiller 20-City Index, which I helped devise, up a total of 9 percent over the six months from March to September. That comes after what was generally a decline in prices for five consecutive years. And while prices dropped very slightly in October, the trend was quite encouraging for the market. (Our November data come out on Tuesday.)

    But some of these changes were seasonal. Home prices have tended to rise every midyear and to fall slightly every fall and winter. And for some unknown reason, seasonal effects have become more pronounced since the financial crisis.

    After screening out these effects, a number of indicators are up, including data for housing starts and permits as well as the National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Index of traffic of prospective homebuyers, which has made a spectacular rebound since last spring.

    What might explain this picture? It’s hard to pin down, because nothing drastically different occurred in the economy from March to September. Yes, there was economic improvement: the unemployment rate, for example, dropped to 7.8 percent from 8.2 percent. But that extended a trend in place since 2009. There was also a decline in foreclosure activity, but for the most part that is also a continuing trend, as reported by RealtyTrac.

    And, last spring, along with Karl Case of Wellesley College and Anne Thompson of McGraw-Hill Construction, I conducted a detailed survey of the attitudes of recent home buyers in four American cities, as I discussed here in October. We did not see any evidence of increased optimism.

    In short, it is hard to find an exact cause for the rebound in home prices. But that isn’t unusual — we hardly ever know the real causes of major changes in speculative prices. Yet we do know that any short-run increase in inflation-adjusted home prices has been virtually worthless as an indicator of where home prices will be going over the next five or more years.

    THERE is a good deal of short-run momentum in home prices — they tend to keep going in the same direction for a year or maybe more. But those prices have generally reverted to the mean fairly quickly, in inflation-corrected terms. The upswing in home prices from 1997 to 2006 — up 86 percent, in real terms — was an anomaly. And that upswing was almost completely reversed by 2012. We certainly can’t rule out another boom. It’s possible that the 20th-century pattern of real home prices, which typically hugged the historical mean, has disappeared. Perhaps people are more speculative in their thinking, after the recent roller-coaster ride, and more prepared psychologically to buy into a bubble. But I wouldn’t put any money on that.

    History doesn’t suggest that another big bubble will come so fast. In fact, before the most recent one, the United States had had only one major national home price boom in the last century, when real prices rose a total of 68 percent from 1942 to 1953.
    After the traumatic collapse of the last price bubble, Americans seem less sanguine about owning versus renting. According to the Census Bureau, the homeownership rate has been falling, from 69.0 percent in the third quarter of 2006 to 65.5 percent in the third quarter last year.

    A study of the causes of these rate movements, by Stuart Gabriel of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Stuart Rosenthal of Syracuse University, concluded that further declines seem likely, but that a forecast would depend “on uncertain forecasts of attitudes toward investing in homeownership as well as changes in credit market and other economic conditions.” (The study was presented at the January meetings of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association/American Economic Association.) If the trend continues, it would suggest long-term declines in prices of existing detached single-family homes, because they are costly to manage as rentals.

    The housing market has also been subject to new oversight, including that of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which just this month announced new ability-to-repay standards for mortgage lenders. Those standards will make wild lending harder to do.

    So it seems that since 2006, our society — including both buyers and lenders — hasn’t become more speculative in its attitudes toward housing. Instead, it has become more wary, and more regulated.

    And, of course, economic clouds are still hovering. Slow overall growth continues in the United States, and European financial markets remain vulnerable.Much of our economy, notably housing, is still supported by taxpayer bailouts, which are clearly not a long-term solution. There are also lingering uncertainties about emerging-market economies, as well as the risk that a disturbance in the Middle East could cause an energy crisis.

    Most experts are not predicting any big change in home prices. As of December, the Zillow-Pulsenomics Home Price Expectations Survey, which involves more than 100 forecasters, and the S.& P. Case/Shiller Composite Index Futures were both forecasting modest increases for the next half-decade, implying inflation-adjusted price growth of 1 to 2 percent a year.

    The bottom line for potential home buyers or sellers is probably this: Don’t do anything dramatic or difficult. There is too much uncertainty to justify any aggressive speculative moves right now. If you have personal reasons for getting into or out of the housing market, go ahead. Otherwise, don’t stay up worrying about home prices any more than you do about stock prices.
    I can’t offer any clearer picture, and I don’t see a solid basis for anyone else to do so, either.




    Robert J. Shiller is professor of economics and finance at Yale.

  • #2
    Re: Shiller Weighs In

    I met Shiller on two occasions and appreciate the rigor of his housing market analysis and the way he talks to a mainstream audience about housing.

    The only point I'd add to his comments is a simple conclusion that can be drawn from Shiller's research, and I sometimes wonder why he doesn't repeat it because from a residential real estate buyer's perspective it's the most important conclusion of his research: Unless you are a landlord, housing has never been an investment and never will be. It only ever appeared to be an investment because home owners used to stay in a home for 20 years or more, over such an extended time inflation inflation cause the price of a home to increase several fold, and most people simply do not compute inflation into the value of assets they hold for such long periods of time. What the average home owner does not understand is that if they took all of the wood, copper, nails, and other commodities that go into the manufacture of a home, load them into a truck and park the truck on a lot for 30 years, they will get more or less the same appreciation as if they purchased a completed home.



    Chart produced for a book on property bubbles to be published in Europe this year
    compares CPI to nominal home price index 1890 to 2012.

    The best that can be said for housing if indeed the price has completed its post-bubble reversion to the mean is that home price increases from here may again track the overall rate of inflation, producing no real gains, if and only if none of the other negative events that Shiller alludes to happen, i.e., no oil price shock induced mid-gap recession occurs and the 90% government-backed secondary home mortgage market remains supported by government in perpetuity.

    That's really what a home buyer is betting on today.
    Last edited by EJ; January 27, 2013, 11:41 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Shiller Weighs In

      I just put an offer on a house. As the average-Joe (with a job), my reasoning is likely shared by many.

      1. I am "allowed" to buy a house now, after my penance for the foreclosure before.
      2. Renting sucks; I have done it for 3.5 years. I am tired of waiting.
      3. Inflation: Without wage inflation, the logic is suspect. However, prices are going up in all sorts of things. Buying a house, with a mortgage, is a hedge against inflation. Real inflation is a lot higher than 2%.
      4. Rent versus buy calculation is not obviously bad now.

      As to #1, there are rules in place that keep people with a foreclosure on their record from borrowing money for 3 years (FHA). Other Joes are probably getting out of bankster jail now too. I am sure somebody who knows about the timing of the foreclosure "crisis" can calculate when new buyers will be coming online. For example, if 3 million people lost their home a few years ago, and 2 million of them have a job now, then that is 2 million potential home buyers coming out of the woodwork.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Shiller Weighs In

        he talks to a mainstream audience about housing . . . I sometimes wonder why he doesn't repeat . . . (that) inflation cause(s) the price of a home to increase
        Why would the chef publicly piss in his soup. Home equity is the closest thing to magic that the average sheeple experiences in his or her finances. It's important that mystery not be revealed for what it is. Consumers get clobbered on every purchase they make - from televisions to cars. Walk out the door and it plummets in value. From my early 20s I was told buying a house was the best investment I could make - from my well-meaning sheeple friends and family. They never made the inflation connection either, nor could they see through FIRE's prestidigitation on home buying in general. The 'Tulip has blown away much of that fog for me, along with a few others, noticeably Hudson. And yes, everyone I have known that was in the income property (RE) game had to be a working landlord, preferrably providing most of the ongoing repairs, with hands on tenant management an absolute necessity. Breaking even over time was the name of the game, with rollover (to another property of equal or geater value) tax deferred equity the game-winning, rinse-and-repeat goal.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Shiller Weighs In

          To help visualize this, here's some output from one of our software products that tracks national, state, and local indicators on a real-time basis:

          Case Shiller last year:

          1year.jpeg


          Last 3 years:

          3year.jpeg


          Last 10 years:

          10year.jpeg


          There has clearly been a nice bump over the past few months, and it looks like it has got us back to the tax credit bump, thought I'm sure others can shed more light on this.

          Also, since home prices are more relevant and interesting on a local level, here's the latest state by state comparison of home price increases for the past month, year, 3 and 5 year periods. This is sorted in descending order based on the 3 year column and the source is the All Transactions House Price Index:


          North Dakota -0.17% 3.56% 14.42% 16.38%
          Utah 0.18% 3.03% 7.26% -0.40%
          Texas 0.04% 2.45% 6.78% 3.56%
          Oklahoma -0.12% 2.25% 5.34% 1.30%
          South Carolina 0.28% 2.10% 4.97% -3.68%
          Indiana 0.21% 2.01% 4.89% -2.69%
          Colorado -0.10% 2.26% 4.65% -1.43%
          Tennessee 0.22% 1.36% 4.50% -3.41%
          the District of Columbia 0.25% -0.28% 4.30% 5.07%
          Arizona 0.03% 2.66% 4.22% -7.39%
          Hawaii -0.65% 1.99% 4.20% -3.11%
          Kentucky -0.24% 1.61% 4.17% -1.90%
          New York 0.40% 1.42% 4.07% 0.64%
          Washington -0.27% 1.82% 3.98% -2.61%
          Minnesota 0.33% 1.93% 3.96% -1.31%
          Louisiana -0.58% 1.22% 3.90% 0.81%
          North Carolina 0.20% 1.84% 3.83% -4.12%
          California -0.12% 1.59% 3.82% -5.21%
          Georgia 0.36% 1.90% 3.79% -4.32%
          Michigan -0.27% 0.33% 3.76% -6.40%
          Ohio -0.18% 1.78% 3.67% -4.34%
          Maryland 0.19% 0.82% 3.41% -0.93%
          Idaho 0.32% 2.18% 3.36% -4.97%
          Florida -0.21% 0.75% 3.33% -7.07%
          Virginia -0.13% 0.85% 3.17% -0.88%
          Pennsylvania -0.08% 0.68% 3.11% -1.05%
          Vermont -0.13% 1.06% 3.11% -1.26%
          Massachusetts 0.23% 1.61% 3.05% -0.89%
          Oregon 0.12% 1.20% 2.97% -5.71%
          Alaska 0.40% 0.55% 2.46% 2.98%
          Illinois -0.13% 0.74% 2.44% -4.51%
          Montana 0.11% 2.64% 2.18% -2.49%
          South Dakota 0.07% 0.29% 2.17% 0.22%
          Iowa 0.02% 0.97% 2.13% -2.01%
          Kansas 0.55% 1.12% 2.12% -2.55%
          Nevada 0.17% 1.65% 2.11% -11.04%
          Wyoming -0.59% -0.21% 2.10% -2.62%
          Nebraska -0.15% 0.62% 2.08% -1.05%
          Delaware 0.22% 0.36% 2.02% -4.97%
          New Jersey 0.78% 1.24% 1.56% -3.98%
          Arkansas -0.26% 0.66% 1.14% -3.20%
          Connecticut -0.11% -0.01% 1.08% -4.79%
          Mississippi -0.14% 0.32% 0.77% -5.75%
          Missouri 0.38% 1.53% 0.76% -4.50%
          Alabama -0.10% 0.55% 0.72% -6.79%
          West Virginia 0.12% -1.83% 0.67% -1.76%
          New Hampshire -0.05% -0.03% 0.56% -3.60%
          Wisconsin 0.05% 0.33% 0.47% -5.31%
          Rhode Island 0.26% 0.20% 0.35% -6.10%
          Maine -0.45% -0.02% -0.12% -4.69%
          New Mexico 0.29% -0.41% -0.19% -5.69%

          I have an entire dashboard built for all of this data/analysis that gets updated in real-time. I can drill down to the state, MSA, and county levels, all with interactive charts and graphs. If anyone has an interest in seeing some additional data/analysis let me know I'd be happy to post it if I have it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Shiller Weighs In

            Originally posted by don View Post
            Why would the chef publicly piss in his soup. Home equity is the closest thing to magic that the average sheeple experiences in his or her finances. It's important that mystery not be revealed for what it is. Consumers get clobbered on every purchase they make - from televisions to cars. Walk out the door and it plummets in value. From my early 20s I was told buying a house was the best investment I could make - from my well-meaning sheeple friends and family. They never made the inflation connection either, nor could they see through FIRE's prestidigitation on home buying in general. The 'Tulip has blown away much of that fog for me, along with a few others, noticeably Hudson. And yes, everyone I have known that was in the income property (RE) game had to be a working landlord, preferrably providing most of the ongoing repairs, with hands on tenant management an absolute necessity. Breaking even over time was the name of the game, with rollover (to another property of equal or geater value) tax deferred equity the game-winning, rinse-and-repeat goal.
            Most of us Boomers heard the same thing don. I sometimes wonder if that well meaning advice was so widespread because "buying a house" was in reality an inflation-hedged forced "savings plan" for so many that would spend all they earned if they had the chance (I'm sure you got the "wasting money on rent" addendum in that speech as well). And I would argue that they did get the inflation connection, even if they didn't recognize it as such from an economics textbook standpoint - where else did the mantra that "property always goes up" come from (usually followed immediately by the observation that "they're not making any more of it"). I'm not so sure this was all such a bad thing. By developed economy international standards housing in most of the USA and Canada was always quite cheap, and remains so today - as long as one excludes NYC and Vancouver :-)

            FIRE's role (private and GSE) seems like another thing to me. Initially it supported the arguably "sensible" purchase of homes by lending to qualified buyers with reasonable down payments and providing some mortgage insurance through the pooling of default risk (circa 1960s). If we had stuck with that we wouldn't have the mess we have today...all around the world. But, as we know, it became a mechanism to leverage up the "untapped" inflation generated, FIRE-appraiser sponsored "equity" in the property (starting with the HELOC ATM?) in order to allow not only more immediate consumption, but more importantly to FIRE the ability to "invest" in a proliferation of financial products that started with equity mutual funds and over three decades spread like...um...FIRE.
            Last edited by GRG55; January 27, 2013, 02:58 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Shiller Weighs In

              Originally posted by aaron View Post
              ...4. Rent versus buy calculation is not obviously bad now....
              Around here, better than it's been for years... though still more expensive than renting, in this hypothetical scenario. Close enough that other factors might make it worthwhile.



              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Shiller Weighs In

                Originally posted by don View Post
                Why would the chef publicly piss in his soup. Home equity is the closest thing to magic that the average sheeple experiences in his or her finances. It's important that mystery not be revealed for what it is. Consumers get clobbered on every purchase they make - from televisions to cars. Walk out the door and it plummets in value. From my early 20s I was told buying a house was the best investment I could make - from my well-meaning sheeple friends and family. They never made the inflation connection either, nor could they see through FIRE's prestidigitation on home buying in general. The 'Tulip has blown away much of that fog for me, along with a few others, noticeably Hudson. And yes, everyone I have known that was in the income property (RE) game had to be a working landlord, preferrably providing most of the ongoing repairs, with hands on tenant management an absolute necessity. Breaking even over time was the name of the game, with rollover (to another property of equal or geater value) tax deferred equity the game-winning, rinse-and-repeat goal.
                If only the racket were confined to the poorly publicized fact that owning a home is not an investment but an inflation hedge that is more economical than renting but only if you stay in the home for the full duration of the mortgage.

                Perhaps an even bigger scandal of home ownership in the U.S. is the amortization schedule of a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, by far the most popular home mortgage product in the U.S.

                Ask your average homeowner with 360 payments to make how much home equity they'll have after 180 payments in 15 years and they will usually tell you half. Most are surprised when you tell them they will own 29%.

                This pretty good Investopedia article
                offers a typical example:

                In our example of a $100,000, 30-year mortgage, the amortization schedule consists of 360 payments. The partial amortization schedule shown below demonstrates how the balance between principal and interest payments reverses over time as later payments consist primarily of principal.


                Payment
                Principal
                Interest
                Principal Balance
                1
                $99.55
                $500.00
                $99,900.45
                12
                $105.16
                $494.39
                $98,772.00
                180
                $243.09
                $356.46
                $71,048.96
                360
                $597.00
                $2.99
                $0

                As the chart shows, each of the required payments is $599.55, but the amount dedicated toward principal and interest varies from payment to payment. Because of the inverse relationship between principal and interest paid, at the start of your mortgage the rate at which you gain equity in your home is much slower. This demonstrates the value of making extra principal payments if the mortgage permits pre-payment. Each extra payment results in a larger repaid portion of the principal, and reduces the interest due on each future payment, moving the homeowner toward the ultimate goal: paying off the mortgage.


                The average home owner in the U.S. stays in a home for six years. The average home owner with a 30-year mortgage may think he or she will have a 20% equity stake after six year rather than the 8% they will actually have. They look at the low interest rate and think they're getting a good deal rather than the amortization schedule that determines how much equity they are actually buying at that rate.

                Not surprisingly, this arrangement works out well for the banks.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Shiller Weighs In

                  Originally posted by EJ View Post
                  If only the racket were confined to the poorly publicized fact that owning a home is not an investment but an inflation hedge that is more economical than renting but only if you stay in the home for the full duration of the mortgage.

                  Perhaps an even bigger scandal of home ownership in the U.S. is the amortization schedule of a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, by far the most popular home mortgage product in the U.S.

                  Ask your average homeowner with 360 payments to make how much home equity they'll have after 180 payments in 15 years and they will usually tell you half. Most are surprised when you tell them they will own 29%.

                  This pretty good Investopedia article
                  offers a typical example:
                  In our example of a $100,000, 30-year mortgage, the amortization schedule consists of 360 payments. The partial amortization schedule shown below demonstrates how the balance between principal and interest payments reverses over time as later payments consist primarily of principal.
                  Payment
                  Principal
                  Interest
                  Principal Balance
                  1
                  $99.55
                  $500.00
                  $99,900.45
                  12
                  $105.16
                  $494.39
                  $98,772.00
                  180
                  $243.09
                  $356.46
                  $71,048.96
                  360
                  $597.00
                  $2.99
                  $0

                  As the chart shows, each of the required payments is $599.55, but the amount dedicated toward principal and interest varies from payment to payment. Because of the inverse relationship between principal and interest paid, at the start of your mortgage the rate at which you gain equity in your home is much slower. This demonstrates the value of making extra principal payments if the mortgage permits pre-payment. Each extra payment results in a larger repaid portion of the principal, and reduces the interest due on each future payment, moving the homeowner toward the ultimate goal: paying off the mortgage.


                  The average home owner in the U.S. stays in a home for six years. The average home owner with a 30-year mortgage may think he or she will have a 20% equity stake after six year rather than the 8% they will actually have.

                  Not surprisingly, this arrangement works out well for the banks.

                  When friends tell me renting is like throwing your money away, I ask them if they know how much rent they are paying on their mortgage. They are surprised to find out that they are just renting the money they had to borrow to become an "owner". Of course as an "owner" they are also still responsible for repairs, maintenance, etc. I think the math works out to where more than half of your loan payment each month goes toward interest for the first 20 years of a 30 year mortgage. Scandal might be an understatement.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Shiller Weighs In

                    Originally posted by porter View Post
                    When friends tell me renting is like throwing your money away, I ask them if they know how much rent they are paying on their mortgage. They are surprised to find out that they are just renting the money they had to borrow to become an "owner". Of course as an "owner" they are also still responsible for repairs, maintenance, etc. I think the math works out to where more than half of your loan payment each month goes toward interest for the first 20 years of a 30 year mortgage. Scandal might be an understatement.
                    I do not understand how this is a scandal. First of all, EJ's example is at 6%, not the much lower rates now available. Plus if you borrow 100,000 at 6%, surely most people should be able to realize that they will have to pay around $6000 in the early years for the interest payment. If they don't, they certainly will when they deduct the interest on their tax return.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Shiller Weighs In

                      Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                      Most of us Boomers heard the same thing don. I sometimes wonder if that well meaning advice was so widespread because "buying a house" was in reality an inflation-hedged forced "savings plan" for so many that would spend all they earned if they had the chance (I'm sure you got the "wasting money on rent" addendum in that speech as well). And I would argue that they did get the inflation connection, even if they didn't recognize it as such from an economics textbook standpoint - where else did the mantra that "property always goes up" come from (usually followed immediately by the observation that "they're not making any more of it"). I'm not so sure this was all such a bad thing. By developed economy international standards housing in most of the USA and Canada was always quite cheap, and remains so today - as long as one excludes NYC and Vancouver :-)
                      Don't misinterpret, GRG, that I didn't see some retention of value on a purchase as a good thing. Rather the people recommending that action, who had only my well being at heart, had little understanding of the process at work. For many years I was happy my 20-something house purchase was "going up" in value.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Shiller Weighs In

                        Originally posted by EJ View Post
                        If only the racket were confined to the poorly publicized fact that owning a home is not an investment but an inflation hedge that is more economical than renting but only if you stay in the home for the full duration of the mortgage.

                        Perhaps an even bigger scandal of home ownership in the U.S. is the amortization schedule of a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, by far the most popular home mortgage product in the U.S.

                        Ask your average homeowner with 360 payments to make how much home equity they'll have after 180 payments in 15 years and they will usually tell you half. Most are surprised when you tell them they will own 29%.

                        This pretty good Investopedia article
                        offers a typical example:
                        In our example of a $100,000, 30-year mortgage, the amortization schedule consists of 360 payments. The partial amortization schedule shown below demonstrates how the balance between principal and interest payments reverses over time as later payments consist primarily of principal.


                        Payment
                        Principal
                        Interest
                        Principal Balance
                        1
                        $99.55
                        $500.00
                        $99,900.45
                        12
                        $105.16
                        $494.39
                        $98,772.00
                        180
                        $243.09
                        $356.46
                        $71,048.96
                        360
                        $597.00
                        $2.99
                        $0

                        As the chart shows, each of the required payments is $599.55, but the amount dedicated toward principal and interest varies from payment to payment. Because of the inverse relationship between principal and interest paid, at the start of your mortgage the rate at which you gain equity in your home is much slower. This demonstrates the value of making extra principal payments if the mortgage permits pre-payment. Each extra payment results in a larger repaid portion of the principal, and reduces the interest due on each future payment, moving the homeowner toward the ultimate goal: paying off the mortgage.


                        The average home owner in the U.S. stays in a home for six years. The average home owner with a 30-year mortgage may think he or she will have a 20% equity stake after six year rather than the 8% they will actually have. They look at the low interest rate and think they're getting a good deal rather than the amortization schedule that determines how much equity they are actually buying at that rate.

                        Not surprisingly, this arrangement works out well for the banks.
                        Plus, of course, the always reasonable 6% tariff on the gross sale by FIRE. (real estate)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Shiller Weighs In

                          Originally posted by jiimbergin View Post
                          I do not understand how this is a scandal. First of all, EJ's example is at 6%, not the much lower rates now available. Plus if you borrow 100,000 at 6%, surely most people should be able to realize that they will have to pay around $6000 in the early years for the interest payment. If they don't, they certainly will when they deduct the interest on their tax return.
                          Seems like they don't teach any math in schools any more. Especially the effect of compounding over long periods of time (+'ve if you are a lender (saver), -'ve if you are a borrower). Maybe someone needs to create an iPhone app to plug the gap :-)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Shiller Weighs In

                            Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                            Seems like they don't teach any math in schools any more. Especially the effect of compounding over long periods of time (+'ve if you are a lender (saver), -'ve if you are a borrower). Maybe someone needs to create an iPhone app to plug the gap :-)
                            There are, at least for androids, but I am not sure that would help them.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Shiller Weighs In

                              shiller has said for many years that housing only tracks inflation. here's a link to an article about his work, published in the ny times magazine in march '06, describing his study of real estate in amsterdam going back to the early 1600's. some of the same houses are still around today! unfortunately the article no longer has the huge photo of stately homes, with price histories spanning roughly 400 years, along one of amsterdam's central canals.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X