Category: Economics

• Experimenting at the right scale

  Jeff Bezos published his annual letter to shareowners this week. You can find it here. And as is his usual practice, he has attached his 1997 letter to shareholders at the bottom of it. This is his “Day 1” and he clearly likes the reminder.

  I was somewhat surprised to learn that 58% of physical gross merchandise sales on Amazon are now by independent third-party sellers. This number has been steadily increasing almost every year since 1999.

  And this is despite the fact that first party sales — products sold by Amazon — have grown at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 25% during this same time period. Amazon excels at the fulfillment component and you can have them do that for you as a third-party seller.

  There are a number of other interesting facts sprinkled throughout the letter, but I particularly liked the bits on “intuition, curiosity, and the power of wandering.” Here is an excerpt on how Amazon is working to scale the size of its failures:

  As a company grows, everything needs to scale, including the size of your failed experiments. If the size of your failures isn’t growing, you’re not going to be inventing at a size that can actually move the needle. Amazon will be experimenting at the right scale for a company of our size if we occasionally have multibillion-dollar failures. Of course, we won’t undertake such experiments cavalierly. We will work hard to make them good bets, but not all good bets will ultimately pay out. This kind of large-scale risk taking is part of the service we as a large company can provide to our customers and to society. The good news for shareowners is that a single big winning bet can more than cover the cost of many losers.

  A lot has already been said and written about accepting failure in life and business. Nobody wants to fail, but it can happen when you’re trying to “imagine the impossible.”

  The two nuances here are that failures should scale along with the company. And that “large-scale risk taking” can actually be construed as a service. It might mean that the impossible becomes possible.

  2019.04.12

• How Japan increased its housing supply

  River Davis’ recent article in the Wall Street Journal about Tokyo’s generally flat home prices had me, again, wondering about demographics. I mean, aren’t their demographics working in reverse? They have an aging population, low immigration, and a low birthrate. But Tokyo, which represents about 11% of Japan’s total population, is still growing. And their home price index looks like this compared to San Francisco and New York:

  

  Davis’ argument, which of course has been made by others before, is that deregulation has allowed housing supply to actually keep up with demand. Land use policies were relaxed to allow taller and denser buildings to be built and some degree of decision making (I’m not sure how much) was moved to the central government in order to counteract the NIMBY problem that invariably attaches itself to local politics.

  The result is housing numbers that look and compare like this:

  In Tokyo last year, housing starts came in around 145,000, according to Japan’s land ministry. This figure is on par with the total number of new housing units authorized last year in New York, Los Angeles, Boston and Houston combined, based on the U.S. Census Bureau data. The same feat was achieved in 2017.

  If we are to normalize against New York, it looks like this:

  

  And the belief seems to be that it is working:

  “A reason why housing prices in Japan are not rising as fast as in New York, for example, is the large number of housing starts,” says Masahiro Kobayashi, a director general at the Japan Housing Finance Agency, a state-run entity which supports the housing market by purchasing home loans.

  One sentence that really stood out for me in the article is this one here: “Private consultants were given permission to issue building permits to speed up construction.” If any of you have tried to pull a building permit for a large project in Toronto, you’ll know that it can take a very long time (understatement). Maybe it is the same in your city. Should we be looking at this?

  Charts: WSJ

  2019.04.07

• How Opportunity Zones may have impacted real estate prices

  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (US) created something known as Opportunity Zones. These are low-income and high-poverty census tracts that are designed to attract investment by offering a number of different tax benefits. I first wrote about it on the blog, here.

  Now that some time has passed since the final Opportunity Zones were announced, Zillow Economic Research decided to look at the possible impact of this designation on real estate values. In other words: To what extent, if at all, are the tax benefits getting capitalized into the value of the properties?

  Below is a chart showing the year-over-year change in the 12-month moving average sale price for low-income census tracts that were (1) eligible and selected as an Opportunity Zone; (2) eligible and not selected; and (3) not eligible.

  

  My understanding is that the “not eligible” category represents census tracts with similar characteristics to the other two categories but, for whatever reason, were not eligible to become an Opportunity Zone. There are criteria.

  The program is still quite new, but what Zillow found was that the eligible census tracts (green and yellow lines) seemed to exhibit similar sale price increases after the Act was signed, but before the final Opportunity Zones were announced. Once the final Zones were announced, sale prices in the selected category (green line) began to surge and move away from the pack.

  This may be evidence that the tax benefits are starting to get capitalized, or it may not be. One question I have is about why pricing in the selected Opportunity Zones seems to be a lot more volatile — even before the Act was announced.

  2019.04.05

• IPOs and home prices

  Fred Wilson made an interesting remark in his recent post about the current “IPO bonanza” that is taking place in the tech space. He is, of course, talking about the recent IPO of Lyft, the recent S-1 filings from Pinterest and others, and the expected filings from Uber, Airbnb, and so on.

  After listing the benefits of going public, he went on to say that this bonanza will surely also mean that it is going to become even more unaffordable in the Bay Area. Part of this is perhaps self-serving, since he operates a VC firm out of NYC. (Take your money and move to NYC.)

  But the data suggests that there is truth to this.

  When Twitter when public in 2013, it was estimated that it created some 1,600 millionaires. This is great for the local startup ecosystem as many of these beneficiaries could go on to found their own companies and create a whole new batch of jobs. The money gets recycled.

  But what does it do to the local housing market — especially a supply-constrained one like that of the Bay Area where it is difficult to build?

  In 2018, Barney Hartman-Glaser, Mark Thibodeau, and Jiro Yoshida penned a paper called, Cash to Spend: IPO Wealth and House Prices. In it, they looked at the impact of IPOs on local home prices in California from 1993 through to 2017.

  What they found, among other things, was a “positive and significant association between local house price changes and firms going public.” The price increases were also found to be the greatest the closer you get to the headquarters of the firm that just went public.

  If you’d like to download a copy of the paper, you can do that here.

  2019.04.02

• Homes for as low as $1

  I was reading today about some houses in Boca Raton, Florida selling for as low as $1.

  The reason they’re selling for nothing, in some cases, is because you’re required to join the local golf/country club as part of the purchase. Initiation fees could be in the range of $70,000 and that doesn’t include whatever ongoing fees you would also be responsible for paying.

  What this demonstrates is that there isn’t enough demand from the next generation to sustain the pricing for this housing type. Part of this probably has to do with simply cohort size (the number of people retiring), but I suspect that there may have also been some changes in consumer preference.

  Some of it is probably golf related. Participation in the sport is relatively tepid among Millennials. And some of it may be related to the fact that these communities don’t have the kind of (urban?) amenities that the next generation is looking for.

  But if you derived enjoyment from the home during your retirement years, maybe it’s not the end of the world that there isn’t a strong resale market.

  2019.03.30

• Canada admitted 321,065 permanent residents last year

  Bloomberg recently reported that Canada admitted 321,065 permanent residents last year. This is up 12% from 2017, where the country admitted 286,479. Last year was also the largest cohort since 1913 (the year before World War I), where the country admitted just over 400,000 people.

  Here is a chart from Bloomberg (it is interactive if you click through):

  

  Of course, Canada was a much smaller country back in 1913 (about 7.6 million people), and so on a percentage basis we are much lower than where we were at the beginning of the 20th century. We’d have to admit close to 2 million permanent residents a year to get to a similar rate.

  And that is not what is in the books. Here are the projected admissions for 2019 to 2021. All of the below stats are from the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration.

  

  I couldn’t find a geographic breakdown for last year, but in 2017, about 40% of admitted permanent residents (or 111,925 total) ended up in Ontario and about 72% ended up in Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta (the top 3 provinces for this year). If we add in BC, it brings this figure up to 86%.

  Here are also the top 10 countries of origin:

  

  If you’d like to download a PDF of the full report, you can do that here.

  2019.03.23