This year, 88 companies delisted or transferred their primary listing away from the London Stock Exchange. Only 18 new companies listed. This, according to FT, marks the biggest net outflow of companies since the financial crisis.
A lot of these companies are, of course, moving their listings over to the US. The New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq are, by far, the two largest stock exchanges in the world by market cap. And so many companies believe that they'll generally have a better time being listed over there -- better access to capital, greater liquidity, etc.
This is not a new trend. Last year, the FT also called out the London Stock Exchange as being the European stock exchange with the greatest risk of seeing companies depart for the US. Here's what's been happening since the financial crisis:
Some people may not think that this is a big deal, but it certainly undermines London's position as a pre-eminent global center. Most rankings of the world's best or most global cities have London and New York out front. But from an economic prosperity standpoint, the US hegemony is real and feels even stronger right now.
Naturally, this decline will also trickle through other parts of the economy. On the real estate side, prime central London is seeing the biggest buyer's market since the financial crisis. (Presumably this is true of other submarkets as well.) On the new construction side, sales and starts are falling, and unsold homes sitting as developer inventory are increasing:
It is tempting to say that London will always be London. But:
“The UK market does not have any god-given right to be a leading listing venue, [but] it requires nurturing and support to be successful in a market that is increasingly global,” said Hall, adding that “more companies will depart” unless action is taken.
This is true of every city and every industry. There are no guarantees. Cities need to compete, just as companies compete. I am also of the opinion that Brexit has and will continue to be a drag on the UK economy. Disclaimer: I'm not an economist. But the UK is a relatively small country. So intuitively, I would think that the way to compete with the scale and dominance of the US is through a more unified Europe.
Are you bullish or bearish on London right now?
One of the things that you'll notice on real estate listings in France is an Energy Performance Diagnostics (EPD) rating. In French, it gets reversed, and so it's a DPE (diagnostic de performance énergétique). What it tells you is how much energy the dwelling (or building) consumes and how much greenhouse gas it emits. And it is a requirement on all real estate listings and for all dwellings, except those that are occupied for less than 4 months per year. The output of this diagnostic is a rating from A (best) to G (worst).
According to FT, this is how primary residences in France rank today:
Less than 5% of homes are rated A and B (the most energy efficient). And many more are rated G and F. Beyond just being energy inefficient, this is potentially a problem because there are penalties and restrictions for the lowest rated homes, one of which is that you are not allowed to rent out the property. Right now and as of January 1 of this year, the upper consumption limit is 450 kWh per square meter per year. Go above this and the home becomes ineligible.
This number is also planned to reduce over time:
January 1, 2023: Rental ban on properties with G+ energy label
January 1, 2025: Rental ban on all properties with G energy label
January 1, 2028: Rental ban on all properties with F energy label
January 1, 2034: Rental ban on all properties with E energy label
Now here's what this is thought to mean for overall rental supply:
By 2028, 5.2mn homes rated F and G, or 17 per cent of total housing stock, will become ineligible for rental. By 2034, all E properties will also be excluded, amounting to about 40 per cent of homes.
This raises an interesting question: Is it more important to have energy-efficient homes or to have greater overall supply? Now obviously the goal and ideal scenario is both; lots of affordable homes that are also energy efficient. And presumably, one of the objectives of this rental ban is to stick/carrot owners into investing in energy measures. But it's not exactly obvious as to how many owners will be able to renovate their homes in time, and how many homes will become ineligible for rent. This will be an interesting policy to watch as it plays out.
Many of you have probably heard of the concept of a "digital twin." Put simply, it is a digital representation of a physical thing. This could be a thing that already exists or, in the case of a new building, it could be a thing that you're about to make exist.
But there's no reason to stop at the scale of a building. Right now, there are groups working on modeling entire cities. Sadly, in Ukraine, it is being done to document important buildings that could get destroyed. But in other places, it is being done in order to create a new kind of urban testing environment (via FT):
“In the city, you don’t have a development environment; you only have one city. The laboratory is the place where the planners go to test. So test in a digital twin and then develop or implant in the city. That’s going to be the value.”
The thinking is that if you combine a digital twin with good real-time urban data and AI, then you might actually be able to start testing new city building initiatives. For instance, maybe you could ask it: What would happen if we added a traffic lane, here? Would it actually help congestion or would it induce new demand?
It's hard to model this kind of stuff today, which is one of the reasons why there's usually fierce debate about seemingly everything. But if we had accurate models that could tell us something close to reality, that feels like it would be a game changer for city builders.