Subscribe
Last year, the formerly Chicago-based hedge fund Citadel announced that it would be moving its global headquarters to Miami. (Though to be clear, the company still has an office in Chicago.) Today, the Miami housing market is feeling the effects:
“They’ve been buying here aggressively,” said Michael Martinez, a real estate agent with Sotheby’s in Miami, who recently brokered the sale of a $5mn home in Coconut Grove, a quiet salubrious suburb, to a Citadel employee. Most of the luxury homes he has sold in recent months have been to hedge fund buyers, half of them from Griffin’s firm, he estimates. “The Citadel migration is definitely occurring.”
But it's not just Citadel.
According to another agent quoted in the article, there are many other "hedge fund buyers" active in the market, and many/most of them are buying all cash. In desirable suburbs like Coral Gables and Coconut Grove, homes between $3-7mm now account for about 40% of all listings.
I remember visiting family in Miami in and around the GFC of 2007-2008. It was at this time that I really fell in love with the place. You could see how it was using art and culture to carve its identify. It was (and still is) this really exciting and sexy place.
But it was also reeling from the GFC. I remember seeing listings for large and newish 2-bedroom waterfront condos for ~US$150k in some areas. If I had any money, this likely would have been a smart move given how Miami has grown since then.
So I think this story is less about the Citadel effect and more about Miami's continued rise as a global city and global financial center. Notwithstanding the whole climate risk thing, this city region has some pretty powerful tailwinds.
Photo by Ryan Parker on Unsplash
Below are two interesting excerpts from this recent Globe and Mail interview with Tiff Macklem (the current governor of the Bank of Canada of the former dean of the Rotman School).
The first has to do with where he believes the "neutral rate" will be in the foreseeable future. He believes it will be higher than where it has been in the past:
We have different models we use to estimate the neutral rate [the central bank’s estimate of where its policy rate would settle if the bank were neither trying to stimulate nor restraining the economy]. … Those models, based on the data we have, still suggest a neutral rate in the range of 2 to 3 per cent.
When we look forward, and we look at a number of the forces, it seems more likely that the neutral rate is going to be higher than that … [rather] than lower than that. We don’t have that data yet. But there are a number of factors.
More people are retiring. The labour market looks like it could be sort of structurally tighter going forward. Globalization has at least stalled, if not reversed. That could create more cost pressures. We’re going to need a lot of new investment in cleaner technologies if we’re going to meet our emissions-reduction targets. When I say ‘we,’ it’s the world – so that’s going to affect global real interest rates.
So when you look forward, it seems more likely that the neutral rate is higher, not lower. And the message is that households, businesses, governments, the financial system, they need to be prepared for that possibility.
The second is about his view on Canadian housing:
The fundamental issue in the housing market, and this has been an issue in Canada for 10 years, at least, is structurally the demand for housing is growing faster than the supply. And so yes, interest rates go up, the housing market will slow. But it’s only going to slow so much because there is a sort of structural shortage of supply relative to demand.
I think what you’re seeing is that with supply growing less than demand, the housing market has started to tick back up, housing prices have started to tick back up. That’s something we need to take into account in monetary policy. But we’re not targeting the housing market. We have one target: CPI inflation.
These two forces are opposing ones. Higher rates create downward pressure on home prices. But, as we all know, a structural housing supply problem does the opposite. Where these two forces balance out is anybody's guess. But as Tiff mentions above, his concern is not home prices; it is inflation.
I am not an economist, but my view is that the broader real estate market is still going through its reset. There will be more pain and less housing supply overall in the short-term. Risk and leverage are still being unwound and that takes time. It also sucks.
Because of this, I think if you ask most people today, they will likely tell you to wait: "We haven't yet hit the bottom of the market." This is likely true. But I have zero ability to time the bottom of a market. And at the same time, the future does feel a lot more knowable compared to a year ago.
My philosophy is more akin to what I blogged about earlier in the week: If it's cheap, if the thesis is sound, and if you have the ability to think long-term, then these downturns are when you want to buy. And that is how I'm starting to feel about things right now. This includes everything from real estate to NFTs.
Disclaimer: This is not investment advice.
Last year, the formerly Chicago-based hedge fund Citadel announced that it would be moving its global headquarters to Miami. (Though to be clear, the company still has an office in Chicago.) Today, the Miami housing market is feeling the effects:
“They’ve been buying here aggressively,” said Michael Martinez, a real estate agent with Sotheby’s in Miami, who recently brokered the sale of a $5mn home in Coconut Grove, a quiet salubrious suburb, to a Citadel employee. Most of the luxury homes he has sold in recent months have been to hedge fund buyers, half of them from Griffin’s firm, he estimates. “The Citadel migration is definitely occurring.”
But it's not just Citadel.
According to another agent quoted in the article, there are many other "hedge fund buyers" active in the market, and many/most of them are buying all cash. In desirable suburbs like Coral Gables and Coconut Grove, homes between $3-7mm now account for about 40% of all listings.
I remember visiting family in Miami in and around the GFC of 2007-2008. It was at this time that I really fell in love with the place. You could see how it was using art and culture to carve its identify. It was (and still is) this really exciting and sexy place.
But it was also reeling from the GFC. I remember seeing listings for large and newish 2-bedroom waterfront condos for ~US$150k in some areas. If I had any money, this likely would have been a smart move given how Miami has grown since then.
So I think this story is less about the Citadel effect and more about Miami's continued rise as a global city and global financial center. Notwithstanding the whole climate risk thing, this city region has some pretty powerful tailwinds.
Photo by Ryan Parker on Unsplash
Below are two interesting excerpts from this recent Globe and Mail interview with Tiff Macklem (the current governor of the Bank of Canada of the former dean of the Rotman School).
The first has to do with where he believes the "neutral rate" will be in the foreseeable future. He believes it will be higher than where it has been in the past:
We have different models we use to estimate the neutral rate [the central bank’s estimate of where its policy rate would settle if the bank were neither trying to stimulate nor restraining the economy]. … Those models, based on the data we have, still suggest a neutral rate in the range of 2 to 3 per cent.
When we look forward, and we look at a number of the forces, it seems more likely that the neutral rate is going to be higher than that … [rather] than lower than that. We don’t have that data yet. But there are a number of factors.
More people are retiring. The labour market looks like it could be sort of structurally tighter going forward. Globalization has at least stalled, if not reversed. That could create more cost pressures. We’re going to need a lot of new investment in cleaner technologies if we’re going to meet our emissions-reduction targets. When I say ‘we,’ it’s the world – so that’s going to affect global real interest rates.
So when you look forward, it seems more likely that the neutral rate is higher, not lower. And the message is that households, businesses, governments, the financial system, they need to be prepared for that possibility.
The second is about his view on Canadian housing:
The fundamental issue in the housing market, and this has been an issue in Canada for 10 years, at least, is structurally the demand for housing is growing faster than the supply. And so yes, interest rates go up, the housing market will slow. But it’s only going to slow so much because there is a sort of structural shortage of supply relative to demand.
I think what you’re seeing is that with supply growing less than demand, the housing market has started to tick back up, housing prices have started to tick back up. That’s something we need to take into account in monetary policy. But we’re not targeting the housing market. We have one target: CPI inflation.
These two forces are opposing ones. Higher rates create downward pressure on home prices. But, as we all know, a structural housing supply problem does the opposite. Where these two forces balance out is anybody's guess. But as Tiff mentions above, his concern is not home prices; it is inflation.
I am not an economist, but my view is that the broader real estate market is still going through its reset. There will be more pain and less housing supply overall in the short-term. Risk and leverage are still being unwound and that takes time. It also sucks.
Because of this, I think if you ask most people today, they will likely tell you to wait: "We haven't yet hit the bottom of the market." This is likely true. But I have zero ability to time the bottom of a market. And at the same time, the future does feel a lot more knowable compared to a year ago.
My philosophy is more akin to what I blogged about earlier in the week: If it's cheap, if the thesis is sound, and if you have the ability to think long-term, then these downturns are when you want to buy. And that is how I'm starting to feel about things right now. This includes everything from real estate to NFTs.
Disclaimer: This is not investment advice.
Summit County Council is holding a special meeting this week to vote on the acquisition of an 8,576-acre property next to Jeremy Ranch and around the corner from Parkview Mountain House.
The County Manager has recommended approval of the deal and these are the terms:
- $55 million total purchase price (about $6,413 per acre)
- Structured through a $15 million three-year option to purchase, with a right to extend for another year for an additional $5 million (option fees to be applied toward the purchase price)
- During the option period, the County will have control of the property and pay $5,000 per month in rent
Another way to look at this deal is that Summit County needs to initially come up with $15 million of equity. This is because they are getting seller financing for the remaining $40 million. (Implied loan-to-value of about 73%.)
After 3 years, they will have to put in another $5 million, which lowers the implied LTV to about 64%. But in both cases, and assuming the $5k per month is all the County needs to pay, there’s effectively no interest on this 4-year “financing”. ($60k per year on $40-45 million.)
The purchase price is also only ~$6k per acre, which should tell you that this is not development land. Its value is what you see here:
And this is exactly what Summit County intends to do with the land: conserve it. As one of the last contiguous mountain ranches in the area that is privately owned, this sure seems like a win for the community. It’s a pretty good deal, too.
Images: Summit County, Utah
Summit County Council is holding a special meeting this week to vote on the acquisition of an 8,576-acre property next to Jeremy Ranch and around the corner from Parkview Mountain House.
The County Manager has recommended approval of the deal and these are the terms:
- $55 million total purchase price (about $6,413 per acre)
- Structured through a $15 million three-year option to purchase, with a right to extend for another year for an additional $5 million (option fees to be applied toward the purchase price)
- During the option period, the County will have control of the property and pay $5,000 per month in rent
Another way to look at this deal is that Summit County needs to initially come up with $15 million of equity. This is because they are getting seller financing for the remaining $40 million. (Implied loan-to-value of about 73%.)
After 3 years, they will have to put in another $5 million, which lowers the implied LTV to about 64%. But in both cases, and assuming the $5k per month is all the County needs to pay, there’s effectively no interest on this 4-year “financing”. ($60k per year on $40-45 million.)
The purchase price is also only ~$6k per acre, which should tell you that this is not development land. Its value is what you see here:
And this is exactly what Summit County intends to do with the land: conserve it. As one of the last contiguous mountain ranches in the area that is privately owned, this sure seems like a win for the community. It’s a pretty good deal, too.
Images: Summit County, Utah
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
