Join >4.5k subscribers and stay updated by getting the latest posts delivered directly to your inbox.
Levered assets, such as real estate, tend to have prices that are correlated with interest rates. Lower rates usually translate into higher asset prices. We are living through this kind of environment right now. And so it is generally valuable to have a view on where rates might go next.
To do that, it can be helpful to look back at history. And a lot of the time, that look goes as far back as the second half of the 20th century. I wasn't buying real estate in the 1970s and 1980s, but I am often reminded -- by people older than me -- that this was a period of high inflation and high interest rates.
But what about an even longer period of time?
Paul Schmelzing (visiting researcher at the Bank of England) has a pioneering working paper that was published last year which looks at global interest rates over a 707 year time horizon. His research spans the period of 1311 to 2018 and uses archives and many other sources to try and reconstruct annual rates across the world's advanced economies.
Below are two charts from the paper that I found interesting. The first represents the data that was used to weight long-term debt yields across the various advanced economies. My how things change when you take a long enough view. It also shows the share of advanced economy real GDP that is captured by the study (it's about ~80% -- the red line below).
The second chart shows the headline global real rate from 1317 to 2018. And what Schmelzing discovers is that even when you look across many different monetary and fiscal regimes, real interest rates have never really ever been stable. In fact, when you look as far back as the 14th century, real interest rates have on average declined about 0.6 to 1.6 basis points per year.
So part of his argument is that what we are seeing today maybe isn't all that strange; it's actually expected. For a copy of the full working paper, click here.
Images: Bank of England
I setup a new cryptocurrency wallet (offline hardware storage) this evening and then used it to buy brandondonnelly.eth using ENS (Ethereum Name Service). I don't know what the hell I'm going to use it for, yet, but I own brandondonnelly.com. So I figured I should grab the decentralized blockchain version of my name as well. Perhaps at some point in the future I'll be glad I did.
I plan to buy a bunch of other .eth domains in the near future as well. The costs are similar to registering a traditional domain.
Part of the reason why I'm doing all of this because I've decided that it's time to do a deep dive and better understand the possibilities of the blockchain (a decentralized vs. centralized internet). I've been following for a number of years, but it has been pretty surface level. It's time to get serious. And I must say that it felt pretty cool to use my new hardware wallet to buy something with ETH.
Overall, things started to really click for me when I saw the digital economy that was emerging with Ethereum (applications, NFTs, DeFi, etc.). Instead of just digital money, I could now see clear use cases and demand drivers for the cryptocurrency. Again, I used ETH to buy brandondonnelly.eth, which means I first had to be an owner of ETH.
If you're looking to better understand the possibilities of a decentralized internet -- specifically why non fungible tokens are bad ass -- check out this blog post by Albert Wenger. He uses the example of the Mona Lisa sitting in the Louvre to explain why NFTs are not a fad and, instead, a "fundamental and profound innovation."
When I was in my early 20s, I spent a summer living and working in Taipei and Hong Kong. It was a wonderful experience. I'll never forget my apartment in Hong Kong's Causeway Bay. It was a small single room with a small bed and an even smaller bathroom. The bed didn't fit me -- at all -- and my legs would hang over the bottom of it. I couldn't stop hitting my shins on the bottom of the frame at night. The bathroom didn't have a dedicated shower, just a hose coming out of the wall. So everything would get wet. It also took me 15 minutes the first morning I showered to figure out how to make the water hot. Eventually I got it.
Despite all this, I remember being enchanted with Hong Kong. Here was this tiny little place with very little developable land that had managed to become, through trade, finance, real estate and other things, one of the wealthiest places in the world. Capitalism! I could also feel the connection to Toronto. Hong Kong has one of the largest Canadian expat communities in the world. In fact, I ran into one of my high school math teachers in a bar in LKF. That was wild. He had moved there with his wife to teach. I suppose because of all of this, I have tended to follow the region a bit more closely.
Last July, the British government promised a path to citizenship for the 3 million or so Hong Kong residents who hold or are eligible for a British National Overseas passport. This passport, as I understand it, was given to citizens at the time of the 1997 handover. Though I don't know how utility was actually derived from it over the years. Before last year's announcement, this document didn't include the right to stay in the UK. However, now it does. And the UK government expects that some 300,000 Hong Kong residents are going to take advantage of this in the first five years of the program. And indeed, according to the Financial Times, 2020 was the first year since SARS back in 2003 that the region lost people -- it had a net outflow of about 39,800 people.
What will this mean for Hong Kong? Well, Bank of America estimated earlier this year that capital outflows from Hong Kong could reach £25 billion in the first year of the program. But maybe this is being too conservative. Here in Canada, capital outflows from Hong Kong hit a record last year at C$43.6 billion. But this too could be an underestimation, as it doesn't include transfers below C$10,000 and probably a bunch of other transfer methods. How much money is actually flowing outward?
This weekend the Financial Times published the above survey results showing sentiment around leaving Hong Kong. Surveys are, of course, a funny thing. Saying you might probably potentially do something is a lot different than actually doing something. But for what it's worth, about a quarter of pro-democracy supporters (which is maybe half of the population?) responded by saying that, yes, they would be prepared to leave. If you include those who responded no, but that they would reconsider and leave if things got worse, the number increases to about 70%.
I don't know how meaningful all of this becomes for Hong Kong. Time will tell. But it has me thinking about my tiny bed and tiny shower in Causeway Bay.
Image: Financial Times
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog