Join >4.5k subscribers and stay updated by getting the latest posts delivered directly to your inbox.
Real estate may be local, but a lot of markets appear to be correlated. I felt that way this past summer when I was meeting with developers in Paris and I continue to feel this way when I read articles about other markets. Here's a recent one from Building Salt Lake talking about the state of Utah's multi-family market.
Based on the article, cap rates appear to be in the mid-4s for newish product, which is too low right now:
Investors aren’t jumping at the 4.6 cap deals they can typically find in Utah today, she added, when they could get over 5.5 in other major markets.
“Salt Lake, a 4.6 cap, I personally think it’s a little mispriced relative to where else we can put our money,” Schultz said.
This means that there aren't the asset trades to support new development. To justify ground-up development, developers need to see a positive spread between their development yield and the exit cap — one that compensates them for the additional risk of construction. If that spread isn't there, or if it's unclear what it might actually be, development shuts off.
Rents and values coming down also doesn't help:
Back in 2022, which was the peak of the market, you could underwrite double-digit rent growth on a typical 250-apartment deal Downtown. Now, he said, “we’re seeing that effective rents down about 8.25%.”
Overall multifamily values are down 26%, King said, though he added that’s not indicative of every single project or every deal. He also said that decline came after four years of record supply and double-digit rent growth.
What should be clear from these excerpts is that Salt Lake City is not at the point in the cycle where developers are jumping to deliver new ground-up multi-family product. They're at the point in the cycle where firms are looking and hoping to buy distressed assets below replacement cost.
Cover photo by Saul Flores on Unsplash
Yesterday morning, my dad sent me the above chart from Apollo and said, "frightening, do you have one for Canada?" In 2010, the median age (not mean) of all US homebuyers was 39 years old. Today, it is 59 years old. And it has jumped significantly since the start of the pandemic.
The obvious explanation, and long-term trend line, is that housing continues to become more expensive relative to incomes, so it is taking longer for people to save up and afford to buy.
But "first-time buyers waiting longer" can't be the only reason, because homeownership is typically a life-cycle behavior. If you're in your 60s and you still haven't made the decision to buy a home, the probability is low that you will then become a first-time buyer.
As of this month, the share of first-time homebuyers in the US dropped to a record low of 21% and the median age was 40. What this suggests is that the above chart must also be the result of a
Benjamin Couillard is a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto whose research looks at things like residential choice and housing supply. And in this recently published paper, he studies the causal effects of rising housing costs on fertility. Here's what he found when examining US Census Bureau data:
...rising [housing] costs since 1990 are responsible for 11% fewer children, 51% of the total fertility rate decline between the 2000s and 2010s, and 7 percentage points fewer young families in the 2010s. Policy counterfactuals indicate that a supply shift for large units generates 2.3 times more births than an equal-cost shift for small units. This analysis concludes that the supply of housing suitable for families can meaningfully contribute to demographic sustainability.
Intuitively, it makes sense that rational adults might consider where they would put a child if they had one, or had one more, and consider the cost of this incremental space. Housing is expensive in major urban centers. Perhaps it's no surprise that Canada, which is known for its broadly unaffordable housing, has fallen into the "ultra-low fertility" category.
But I think this fertility-housing relationship is an important one to call out when considering appropriate public policies. Housing is often viewed through the lens of what bad things will happen if we build it. That's why we do shadow studies, force stepbacks, charge development charges (impact fees), and the list goes on.
What is harder to grasp is what happens when we don't build new housing. Most — or at least many — seem to agree that not building enough housing hurts overall affordability. But what this study also demonstrates is that not building enough family-sized housing is bad for making babies!
This has all sorts of socio-economic repercussions, one of which is that a country now has to rely more heavily on immigration in order to offset a shrinking population base. It becomes a larger economic problem. When framed this way, it makes me wonder: why do we tax new family-sized homes the way we do?
Wealthy older people must be buying vacation homes, retirement homes, and/or relocating (maybe for better weather and maybe for lower taxes). Combine this with fewer first-time buyers (and I'm sure some other factors), and you get the above chart.
So what about Canada?
I couldn't find an exact equivalent chart, but I did find this Bank of Canada note from 2022.
As of 2021, first-time buyers still accounted for roughly half of all home purchases in Canada. The rest were repeat buyers, and the smallest percentage were investors, which includes people buying a property as an investment or buying a property to live in while at the same time converting an existing residence into an investment property.
The median age for a first-time buyer was 36 years and the average age for all other buyers was 50 years. If we assume that this split is roughly 50/50, based on the above chart, then we get to an average homebuyer age somewhere around 43 years old. Intuitively, this seems at least directionally right.
(Note, this data is from 2021, which misses most of the pandemic period.)
Canada has a much higher percentage of first-time buyers driving the market. Canada does not have the same wealth inequality as the US. The 55+ age group in the US owns somewhere around 71% of all housing wealth and 69% of all stocks/equity funds.
And, Canadians tend to be less mobile than the US population within the country. Canada doesn't have warm, low-tax provinces attracting older rich people (though I would support us having one or two somehow).
In summary: You're right, dad, it is a frightening trend line.
Cover photo by Valeriia Neganova on Unsplash
An alternative approach to encourage more infill family housing might be to eliminate development charges, building permit fees, parkland fees, and as many other government fees as possible on all three-bedroom or larger homes. And the reason you would do this is because the economic and demographic cost of not building is even greater.
Based on the work of Couillard, we know at least one of the outcomes: more babies.
Cover photo by Lotus Design N Print on Unsplash
Share Dialog
