Barry Ritholtz recently published an article in Bloomberg View called: Still a Lot of Negativity on Housing.
He basically says that “many people” should go out and buy a home given the current state of the US housing market and the historically low interest rates. That’s a perfectly fine argument. But it’s not all that interesting.
The article does, however, have a moderately interactive chart showing the percentage of US households that own their homes.
It shows the pre-2008 peak:
And it shows, somewhat surprisingly, the recent “search for bottom.” I knew there was a significant post-2008 decline, but I guess I thought it had stabilized. Instead, the US is hitting homeownership rates not seen since the mid-1960s.
Big cities tend to have a higher percentage of renters. Millennials are flooding into cities. The digital economy now encourages mobility, which contradicts traditional notions of homeownership. There are all kinds of potential hypotheses that could be extracted here.
But the other interesting thing I noticed in the article, was this:
However, at some point in life, you probably no longer want to have a landlord telling you what color your walls can be or become tired of having strangers share a wall with you. I am not a zealous believer that everyone should go out and buy a home. However, for many people, buying makes sense – especially with mortgage rates as low as they are (the current rate of about 3.45 percent for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is just 0.10 percent higher than the record low).
I couldn’t help but notice the embedded cultural bias. The inference is that when you rent, you share walls. In other words, you live in some sort of multi-family apartment.
But when you finally go out and buy a home, you graduate from that. You no longer need to share walls with strangers. Because an owned home equals a single-family detached dwelling. That’s how you know you’ve made it.
Well, I have shared walls in my owned home. I guess I’m not there yet. :)
There’s no shortage of talk about a Canadian housing bubble:
In Vancouver, the price of a single-family home (as of June of this year) increased
This morning, I am looking at the following chart of average home prices in the Greater Toronto Area:
It’s from this Globe and Mail article.
These are staggering numbers. The average price of a detached home in the suburbs (905 area code) increased 21% year-over-year. In the city (416 area code), the increase was 19.6% YOY. These numbers are almost unbelievable.
The article focuses on low supply (decrease in listings) and high demand. And that is certainly a big part of what’s going on here in this city, as well as in many others.
But of course, the backdrop to all of this is our low / zero / negative interest rate environment.
Larry Summers has a great post on his blog (which I discovered this morning via
Barry Ritholtz recently published an article in Bloomberg View called: Still a Lot of Negativity on Housing.
He basically says that “many people” should go out and buy a home given the current state of the US housing market and the historically low interest rates. That’s a perfectly fine argument. But it’s not all that interesting.
The article does, however, have a moderately interactive chart showing the percentage of US households that own their homes.
It shows the pre-2008 peak:
And it shows, somewhat surprisingly, the recent “search for bottom.” I knew there was a significant post-2008 decline, but I guess I thought it had stabilized. Instead, the US is hitting homeownership rates not seen since the mid-1960s.
Big cities tend to have a higher percentage of renters. Millennials are flooding into cities. The digital economy now encourages mobility, which contradicts traditional notions of homeownership. There are all kinds of potential hypotheses that could be extracted here.
But the other interesting thing I noticed in the article, was this:
However, at some point in life, you probably no longer want to have a landlord telling you what color your walls can be or become tired of having strangers share a wall with you. I am not a zealous believer that everyone should go out and buy a home. However, for many people, buying makes sense – especially with mortgage rates as low as they are (the current rate of about 3.45 percent for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is just 0.10 percent higher than the record low).
I couldn’t help but notice the embedded cultural bias. The inference is that when you rent, you share walls. In other words, you live in some sort of multi-family apartment.
But when you finally go out and buy a home, you graduate from that. You no longer need to share walls with strangers. Because an owned home equals a single-family detached dwelling. That’s how you know you’ve made it.
Well, I have shared walls in my owned home. I guess I’m not there yet. :)
There’s no shortage of talk about a Canadian housing bubble:
In Vancouver, the price of a single-family home (as of June of this year) increased
This morning, I am looking at the following chart of average home prices in the Greater Toronto Area:
It’s from this Globe and Mail article.
These are staggering numbers. The average price of a detached home in the suburbs (905 area code) increased 21% year-over-year. In the city (416 area code), the increase was 19.6% YOY. These numbers are almost unbelievable.
The article focuses on low supply (decrease in listings) and high demand. And that is certainly a big part of what’s going on here in this city, as well as in many others.
But of course, the backdrop to all of this is our low / zero / negative interest rate environment.
Larry Summers has a great post on his blog (which I discovered this morning via
In an effort to stop prices from running away even further, I am sure you all know that the BC government has recently imposed an additional 15% transfer tax on Metro Vancouver homes purchased by foreign buyers (people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents).
The data that I have seen (here and here) suggests that foreign buyers could make up somewhere around 5-10% of the market. Given that many will now get creative in terms of hiding their foreignness, I am not so sure this new tax will have a dramatic impact on affordability. But it certainly sounds nice if you’ve been grouchy about home prices and thinking “those damn foreigners.” We’ll have to see how it plays out.
Having said all of this, if Vancouver is in fact in bubble territory, would that be so bad? Are we thinking about this the right way?
Here’s an alternative viewpoint.
I recently stumbled upon an old blog post by Tom Evslin (2005) called: Why we need bubbles. I discovered it via it Fred Wilson. Tom’s argument is that we need irrational exuberance because it provides the capital that allows for dramatic overbuilding. The overbuilding of things like rail infrastructure, internet infrastructure and – I’m adding this – housing infrastructure. And once this happens, it dethrones the incumbents and paves the way for future economic progress.
Tom’s focus is on technology, but I couldn’t help but think of the parallels with city building. Is the proposed Rail Deck Park in Toronto so bold that it’s only possible during a period of irrational exuberance? Should Vancouver instead be working to dramatically expand its housing supply instead of trying to tax away a portion of demand? Is a period of irrational exuberance precisely the moment where we lay the ground work for our future successes?
I’m not saying we’re in a bubble. I don’t believe in or know how to time markets. But I am asking whether the bubble headlines are missing the greater opportunity.
There are always people threatening that interests rates just have to go up. But Larry, as well as others, continue to argue that natural real interest rates are likely to remain close to zero going forward.
Fred mentions Albert Wenger on his blog this morning and I have written about him before as well, here. In his book World After Capital, Albert argues that capital is no longer the scarce resource of our time. Instead, it has become attention.
If you believe all of this to be true, then perhaps the numbers at the top of this post aren’t so unbelievable after all.
In an effort to stop prices from running away even further, I am sure you all know that the BC government has recently imposed an additional 15% transfer tax on Metro Vancouver homes purchased by foreign buyers (people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents).
The data that I have seen (here and here) suggests that foreign buyers could make up somewhere around 5-10% of the market. Given that many will now get creative in terms of hiding their foreignness, I am not so sure this new tax will have a dramatic impact on affordability. But it certainly sounds nice if you’ve been grouchy about home prices and thinking “those damn foreigners.” We’ll have to see how it plays out.
Having said all of this, if Vancouver is in fact in bubble territory, would that be so bad? Are we thinking about this the right way?
Here’s an alternative viewpoint.
I recently stumbled upon an old blog post by Tom Evslin (2005) called: Why we need bubbles. I discovered it via it Fred Wilson. Tom’s argument is that we need irrational exuberance because it provides the capital that allows for dramatic overbuilding. The overbuilding of things like rail infrastructure, internet infrastructure and – I’m adding this – housing infrastructure. And once this happens, it dethrones the incumbents and paves the way for future economic progress.
Tom’s focus is on technology, but I couldn’t help but think of the parallels with city building. Is the proposed Rail Deck Park in Toronto so bold that it’s only possible during a period of irrational exuberance? Should Vancouver instead be working to dramatically expand its housing supply instead of trying to tax away a portion of demand? Is a period of irrational exuberance precisely the moment where we lay the ground work for our future successes?
I’m not saying we’re in a bubble. I don’t believe in or know how to time markets. But I am asking whether the bubble headlines are missing the greater opportunity.
There are always people threatening that interests rates just have to go up. But Larry, as well as others, continue to argue that natural real interest rates are likely to remain close to zero going forward.
Fred mentions Albert Wenger on his blog this morning and I have written about him before as well, here. In his book World After Capital, Albert argues that capital is no longer the scarce resource of our time. Instead, it has become attention.
If you believe all of this to be true, then perhaps the numbers at the top of this post aren’t so unbelievable after all.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
