The latest (15th) edition of Knight Frank's annual The Wealth Report was published last month. I find these interesting because they give you a global view of how and where capital is flowing into real estate (specifically prime real estate). London, for example, did rather well last year despite the pandemic. Buyers from the around the world spent nearly $4 billion on what is commonly referred to as "super-prime properties." This is real estate with a sale price of US$10 million or more. London saw 201 super-prime properties trade hands last year, with an average price of $18.6 million and with 31 of these transactions being at or above $25 million. This is an increase compared to the year prior (2019), which I suppose is something given that the UK's housing market was more or less frozen between March and May of last year. These figures put London at the top, ahead of New York and Hong Kong, when it comes to super-prime real estate sales in 2020. (London figures via the Financial Times.)
Another interesting thing that you'll find in the report is a city ranking that Knight Frank calls their City Trifecta. What this index does is take Knight Frank's City Wealth Index (which considers where wealth is currently concentrated) and then adds in two other dimensions: innovation and wellbeing. The idea here is that innovation should drive future economic growth and wealth, and that wellbeing (quality of life) is pretty important when it comes to the future competitiveness of our global cities. When you look at the world's top cities through this lens, the ranking starts to differ from what you may be used to seeing with cities like London, New York, and Hong Kong at the top (see above chart). Now you have Munich taking the number one spot; Boston and Toronto in 5th and 6th position, respectively; and cities like Zurich jumping up ahead of cities like Hong Kong. These kind of rankings always need to be looked at with a critical eye, but they can be interesting nonetheless.
Image: Knight Frank
In the fourth quarter of last year, the average house price to earnings ratio in the UK was about 8.4x. Apparently this is about as high as it has been in the past 120 years. But interestingly enough, if you go back to the 19th century, this ratio was even higher. It was over 12x back in 1845, but then went on a steady decline until about the 1920s. What changed, according to some researchers, is three things: homes got smaller (making them more affordable), incomes rose, and supply increased.
So what's going on today? The obvious answer is perhaps that interest rates are low. But in this recent FT article by Martin Wolf, he argues that that's not really the primary driver. Part of his logic is that low interest rates are a global phenomenon. And so how is it that real home prices in the UK rose 93% between 2000 and 2020, but only 29% in Germany? There must be some other structural force(s) at work. (Germany has a lower homeownership rate for whatever that's worth.)
Wolf argues that it's a problem of housing supply. Very little housing was built during WW2, for obvious reasons, but housing delivery did really spike in the post-war period in the UK. Local authorities also played a major role. If completions from 2000 to 2019 had averaged the same rate seen between 1950 and 1970, the country would have 2.9 million more homes today, representing a 13% increase to total dwelling count.
This, Wolf argues, would be having an impact on house price dynamics.
Chart: Financial Times
Here are some interesting figures about Venice take from this recent FT article by Chris Allnutt:
Tourist visits to Venice last year were estimated to be about 1/5 of what they usually are
Short-term rental bookings as of December 2020 were down about 74% year-over-year
It is estimated that short-term rentals normally represent about 12% of homes in Venice (this is significantly higher than the "typical city" which is estimated to be about 1-2%)
Even before the pandemic, average property prices had declined from about €4,500 per square meter in 2018 to €4,341 in 2019 (2020 data is still coming)
Pre-pandemic, the population of the city was about 50,000, which is less than a third of what it was back in the 1950s
A 2018 study by Airbnb reported that for every local Venetian the city had 74 tourists on average (wow)
Being a dominant port city, the city has generally been disproportionately impacted by plagues and other health crises throughout its history
The Lazzaretto Vecchio, which still stands today, is a small island in the Venetian Lagoon that was founded in the 15th century as a hospital to care for plague victims; apparently it was the first of its kind in the world
During the 15th century, Venice saw its population drop by about two-thirds as a result of an epidemic
At the height of the Republic of Venice in the 1790s, the city had a population of about 170,000; after falling to Napoleon it halved to about 96,000
It's worth pointing out that the "height of the republic" occurred after many great epidemics; the subsequent population decline was seemingly the result of a conquest and not pestilence
Photo by @canmandawe on Unsplash