In 2023, there were 379,000 babies born in Italy. This is down from 393,000 babies in the prior year and represents a new record low. Already in 2022, the number of births was noted as being the fewest since Italy's unification in 1861. The result is a "demographic winter." Of course, this challenge is not unique to Italy. It is happening in most developed countries. Korea, for example, has a fertility rate somewhere around 0.72 babies per woman. Because of this, there are a lot of people in the world trying to figure out how to encourage more births.

Here is Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni:

Meloni, herself a mother of a single child, has said it is a priority for her government to increase the birth rate and encourage women to have more babies “for the simple reason that we want Italy to have a future again”.

So what's causing this?

One seemingly logical explanation could be that the employment rates for women and men are basically the same now. Fewer women are staying at home and so there's less time to have and raise children. In fact, the opposite is true. If you look at fertility rates across Europe, high birth rates tend to correlate with high employment rates for women. I guess families need to be able to afford children. Here's an excerpt from a Guardian article (c. 2015) on the topic of fertility:

The map of the fertility rate in European countries more or less overlaps with that of women in work. In countries with relatively buoyant populations, such as France and Scandinavia, women play an important part in the labour market. According to data for 2010 published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the employment rate for women aged 24 to 54 in work was 83.8% in France, 84.4% in Finland, 85.6% in Denmark and 87.5% in Sweden, barely lower than the equivalent figures for men. In contrast, in southern Europe and Japan the share of women in work was much lower: only 64.4% of them had a job in Italy, 71.6% in Japan, 72.2% in Greece and 78.3% in Spain.

Staying on the theme of being able to afford kids, another possible explanation might be that kids are expensive and so you need strong family-friendly government policies to help support them. While this I'm sure helps, there's data to suggest that the correlation between these policies and birth rates is actually fairly weak. That's why, even though many developed countries have expanded such policies, birth rates continue to fall. Here's a graphic by John Burn-Murdoch from FT:

So what the hell is it then? Well there is another possible explanation and it is that it's more of a cultural thing. In the above article, John makes the argument that a number of other more important factors are leading to declining birth rates. Namely, more people are choosing to live alone, and not as a couple. Priorities have shifted, where family formation is no longer seen as central to a fulfilling life. And more young people are generally anxious. (He doesn't get into why but I'm sure that it's possible to blame TikTok.)

But what really stood out to me was this graphic:

Since the 1960s, parenting has gotten systematically more intense for parents. The average number of hours per day spent by mothers on "hands-on parenting activities" has grown significantly in most developed countries. However, there is one clear exception: France. It turns out that the French are, at least based on this data, less likely to be so-called helicopter parents. Parenting is less hands-on, kids get more freedom and -- perhaps because of this -- France has the highest fertility rate in Europe at over 1.8 babies per woman.

This is not to say that France's family-friendly policies aren't doing something as well. I would imagine they are. But the above makes intuitive sense to me. If you create an environment where the threshold to be considered a good parent is constantly becoming more duanting and more life-consuming, it's no surprise to me that more and more people are simply saying, no thank you.

The $418 million commissions lawsuit that was settled last week with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) is certainly a big deal. The NAR is trying to sound positive, but all signs point to this outcome being meaningful for the industry. TD Cowen Insights is forecasting that commissions paid in the US each year could fall by some $25 to $50 billion (from a total of ~$100 billion). And this is the headline you'll see everywhere right now. But how might this actually happen?

As we've talked about before, the status quo commissions set up is a good one for agents:

• Sellers are typically the party who pays 100% of the commissions

• But sellers don’t pay until the agent sells and they have fresh cash

• Money being deducted from proceeds (a “take rate”) is a lot less noticeable and has a lot less friction than cash you just have to pay out of pocket

• Buyers kind of don’t pay -- or at least that's how they're supposed to feel

This is "good" because it perpetuates the existing model. If buyers feel like they're mostly not paying, they're just going to go to the marketplace with the most supply of homes. And that marketplace is the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). However, this marketplace also does things like tell buyer agents how much commission they will make as part of each deal. And the belief is that practices like this are anticompetitive.

So as part of the above settlement, the following new rules are expected to go into place by July 2024 in the US:

• Seller agents will no longer be able to set compensation for buyer agents

• All fields on MLS displaying broker compensation will need to be removed

• Furthermore, agents will no longer even need to subscribe to an MLS in order to accept compensation

• Buyers working with an agent will need to enter into their own buyer broker agreement and negotiate compensation separately

• However, there's nothing stopping buyers and sellers from negotiating whatever commission structure they want; the idea is simply that it will be more transparent and negotiated by each participant

Why this is meaningful is that it decouples buyer agents and seller agents in a way that they aren't today. Instead of everything originating from the sell side, each side of the transaction is now going to -- theoretically at least -- negotiate what they believe is fair compensation for their representation. At the same time, there's no obligation to even subscribe to an MLS.

This leads us to, at least, two important things to think about:

1. What is fair compensation? Well, it should depend. If I'm a first-time buyer, I may want someone to walk me through the entire process. But if I've done it many times before, maybe I need very little. Or, if I'm an investor looking to renovate homes, maybe I want representation that is also an expert on construction. The point is that, in a truly open market, one should be able to find an agent and pay them based on the value that they're creating. And this is presumably why everyone is expecting commissions to fall precipitously.

2. If there's no obligation to even subscribe to an MLS, does this then open the door for new and more open listing platforms? Right now, I don't know how this will play out. I'd like to better understand more of the details around this settlement item and what it could mean for the landscape. But I do know that the way to spur the most amount of innovation would be to have the marketplace run on something like a blockchain, and then allow anyone to create their own listing platform on top of it. One day.

This will be fascinating to watch play out. And I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it spurs similar changes here in Canada. Expect further coverage of this topic on the blog.

Photo by Tom Rumble on Unsplash