Recently I’ve been seeing a number of posts/articles talking about the dot-com bubble. It seems to be driven by talk of a pending crypto bubble.
Whatever the case may be, the recounts are interesting. In this one by venture capitalist Fred Wilson, he talks about how 90% of his net worth went to zero following the crash. And the only reason it wasn’t all of his net worth was because he was fortunate enough to sell some tech stocks in advance of the crash to buy “two significant pieces of real estate.” The two properties were 10% of his net worth before the crash and 100% of his net worth after the crash.
Fred goes on to talk about how he had to learn about diversification the hard way. And this reminded me of a theory that many of you are probably familiar with called “depression babies”. This is the belief that large macroeconomic shocks – such as the Great Depression and the dot-com boom – create a lasting impact on people’s propensity to take financial risks.
And indeed, there’s evidence to suggest that this is in fact the case. In this 2010 paper
Recently I’ve been seeing a number of posts/articles talking about the dot-com bubble. It seems to be driven by talk of a pending crypto bubble.
Whatever the case may be, the recounts are interesting. In this one by venture capitalist Fred Wilson, he talks about how 90% of his net worth went to zero following the crash. And the only reason it wasn’t all of his net worth was because he was fortunate enough to sell some tech stocks in advance of the crash to buy “two significant pieces of real estate.” The two properties were 10% of his net worth before the crash and 100% of his net worth after the crash.
Fred goes on to talk about how he had to learn about diversification the hard way. And this reminded me of a theory that many of you are probably familiar with called “depression babies”. This is the belief that large macroeconomic shocks – such as the Great Depression and the dot-com boom – create a lasting impact on people’s propensity to take financial risks.
And indeed, there’s evidence to suggest that this is in fact the case. In this 2010 paper
by Ulrike Malmendier and Stefan Nagel, they came to the following conclusion: “Our results show that risky asset returns experienced over the course of an individual’s life have a significant effect on the willingness to take financial risks.”
I often think about this with respect to my own career. I started working in real estate before the 2008 financial crisis. I also happened to be living in the U.S. at the time – where it was far worse than in Canada. We got off easy. I remember seasoned real estate professionals telling me that it was going to take at least 20 years before the U.S. would build another commercial office building. It was that bad. And that was the sentiment at the time.
Of course, that wasn’t the case. It didn’t take two decades to resume building. But I like to think that 2008 will remain permanently etched in my mind. It’s my reminder that crashes can and will happen. Don’t forget that. Stay disciplined. At the same time, it’s my reminder that these periodic crashes create opportunities. Because fear invariably makes us overshoot the mark.
Social Capital (Silicon Valley VC firm) recently published an interesting series on (economic) bubbles: what they are, how they form, when they are useful, and so on. It’s worth a read – you can start here.
Here’s a taste:
“Prices in markets turn out to have two roles: they tell us something about the past, and they influence our actions — and therefore, their own price — in the future. Sometimes, in a big way, this dual role makes a particular asset class — tulip bulbs, railway stock, Canadian real estate, a digital token — become attractive solely because its price is going up. George Soros characterized and mastered this phenomenon, known as Reflexivity: when our views and our actions reinforce each other. If an expensive price means that something is high quality or otherwise attractive, we will tend to buy more of it and drive the price higher, independently of whether or not the thing is any good. It’s true for sunglasses, it’s true for ICOs, and a whole lot more.”
For obvious reasons I couldn’t resist posting this quote. Notwithstanding the shot at Canadian real estate, bubbles are a fascinating topic. They happen time and time again because we are greedy.
There’s no shortage of talk about a Canadian housing bubble:
In Vancouver, the price of a single-family home (as of June of this year) increased
by Ulrike Malmendier and Stefan Nagel, they came to the following conclusion: “Our results show that risky asset returns experienced over the course of an individual’s life have a significant effect on the willingness to take financial risks.”
I often think about this with respect to my own career. I started working in real estate before the 2008 financial crisis. I also happened to be living in the U.S. at the time – where it was far worse than in Canada. We got off easy. I remember seasoned real estate professionals telling me that it was going to take at least 20 years before the U.S. would build another commercial office building. It was that bad. And that was the sentiment at the time.
Of course, that wasn’t the case. It didn’t take two decades to resume building. But I like to think that 2008 will remain permanently etched in my mind. It’s my reminder that crashes can and will happen. Don’t forget that. Stay disciplined. At the same time, it’s my reminder that these periodic crashes create opportunities. Because fear invariably makes us overshoot the mark.
Social Capital (Silicon Valley VC firm) recently published an interesting series on (economic) bubbles: what they are, how they form, when they are useful, and so on. It’s worth a read – you can start here.
Here’s a taste:
“Prices in markets turn out to have two roles: they tell us something about the past, and they influence our actions — and therefore, their own price — in the future. Sometimes, in a big way, this dual role makes a particular asset class — tulip bulbs, railway stock, Canadian real estate, a digital token — become attractive solely because its price is going up. George Soros characterized and mastered this phenomenon, known as Reflexivity: when our views and our actions reinforce each other. If an expensive price means that something is high quality or otherwise attractive, we will tend to buy more of it and drive the price higher, independently of whether or not the thing is any good. It’s true for sunglasses, it’s true for ICOs, and a whole lot more.”
For obvious reasons I couldn’t resist posting this quote. Notwithstanding the shot at Canadian real estate, bubbles are a fascinating topic. They happen time and time again because we are greedy.
from the year prior. Does that constitute bubble territory?
In an effort to stop prices from running away even further, I am sure you all know that the BC government has recently imposed an additional 15% transfer tax on Metro Vancouver homes purchased by foreign buyers (people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents).
The data that I have seen (here and here) suggests that foreign buyers could make up somewhere around 5-10% of the market. Given that many will now get creative in terms of hiding their foreignness, I am not so sure this new tax will have a dramatic impact on affordability. But it certainly sounds nice if you’ve been grouchy about home prices and thinking “those damn foreigners.” We’ll have to see how it plays out.
Having said all of this, if Vancouver is in fact in bubble territory, would that be so bad? Are we thinking about this the right way?
Here’s an alternative viewpoint.
I recently stumbled upon an old blog post by Tom Evslin (2005) called: Why we need bubbles. I discovered it via it Fred Wilson. Tom’s argument is that we need irrational exuberance because it provides the capital that allows for dramatic overbuilding. The overbuilding of things like rail infrastructure, internet infrastructure and – I’m adding this – housing infrastructure. And once this happens, it dethrones the incumbents and paves the way for future economic progress.
Tom’s focus is on technology, but I couldn’t help but think of the parallels with city building. Is the proposed Rail Deck Park in Toronto so bold that it’s only possible during a period of irrational exuberance? Should Vancouver instead be working to dramatically expand its housing supply instead of trying to tax away a portion of demand? Is a period of irrational exuberance precisely the moment where we lay the ground work for our future successes?
I’m not saying we’re in a bubble. I don’t believe in or know how to time markets. But I am asking whether the bubble headlines are missing the greater opportunity.
from the year prior. Does that constitute bubble territory?
In an effort to stop prices from running away even further, I am sure you all know that the BC government has recently imposed an additional 15% transfer tax on Metro Vancouver homes purchased by foreign buyers (people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents).
The data that I have seen (here and here) suggests that foreign buyers could make up somewhere around 5-10% of the market. Given that many will now get creative in terms of hiding their foreignness, I am not so sure this new tax will have a dramatic impact on affordability. But it certainly sounds nice if you’ve been grouchy about home prices and thinking “those damn foreigners.” We’ll have to see how it plays out.
Having said all of this, if Vancouver is in fact in bubble territory, would that be so bad? Are we thinking about this the right way?
Here’s an alternative viewpoint.
I recently stumbled upon an old blog post by Tom Evslin (2005) called: Why we need bubbles. I discovered it via it Fred Wilson. Tom’s argument is that we need irrational exuberance because it provides the capital that allows for dramatic overbuilding. The overbuilding of things like rail infrastructure, internet infrastructure and – I’m adding this – housing infrastructure. And once this happens, it dethrones the incumbents and paves the way for future economic progress.
Tom’s focus is on technology, but I couldn’t help but think of the parallels with city building. Is the proposed Rail Deck Park in Toronto so bold that it’s only possible during a period of irrational exuberance? Should Vancouver instead be working to dramatically expand its housing supply instead of trying to tax away a portion of demand? Is a period of irrational exuberance precisely the moment where we lay the ground work for our future successes?
I’m not saying we’re in a bubble. I don’t believe in or know how to time markets. But I am asking whether the bubble headlines are missing the greater opportunity.
