Below are two interesting excerpts from this recent Globe and Mail interview with Tiff Macklem (the current governor of the Bank of Canada of the former dean of the Rotman School).
The first has to do with where he believes the "neutral rate" will be in the foreseeable future. He believes it will be higher than where it has been in the past:
We have different models we use to estimate the neutral rate [the central bank’s estimate of where its policy rate would settle if the bank were neither trying to stimulate nor restraining the economy]. … Those models, based on the data we have, still suggest a neutral rate in the range of 2 to 3 per cent.
When we look forward, and we look at a number of the forces, it seems more likely that the neutral rate is going to be higher than that … [rather] than lower than that. We don’t have that data yet. But there are a number of factors.
More people are retiring. The labour market looks like it could be sort of structurally tighter going forward. Globalization has at least stalled, if not reversed. That could create more cost pressures. We’re going to need a lot of new investment in cleaner technologies if we’re going to meet our emissions-reduction targets. When I say ‘we,’ it’s the world – so that’s going to affect global real interest rates.
So when you look forward, it seems more likely that the neutral rate is higher, not lower. And the message is that households, businesses, governments, the financial system, they need to be prepared for that possibility.
The second is about his view on Canadian housing:
The fundamental issue in the housing market, and this has been an issue in Canada for 10 years, at least, is structurally the demand for housing is growing faster than the supply. And so yes, interest rates go up, the housing market will slow. But it’s only going to slow so much because there is a sort of structural shortage of supply relative to demand.
I think what you’re seeing is that with supply growing less than demand, the housing market has started to tick back up, housing prices have started to tick back up. That’s something we need to take into account in monetary policy. But we’re not targeting the housing market. We have one target: CPI inflation.
These two forces are opposing ones. Higher rates create downward pressure on home prices. But, as we all know, a structural housing supply problem does the opposite. Where these two forces balance out is anybody's guess. But as Tiff mentions above, his concern is not home prices; it is inflation.
I am not an economist, but my view is that the broader real estate market is still going through its reset. There will be more pain and less housing supply overall in the short-term. Risk and leverage are still being unwound and that takes time. It also sucks.
Because of this, I think if you ask most people today, they will likely tell you to wait: "We haven't yet hit the bottom of the market." This is likely true. But I have zero ability to time the bottom of a market. And at the same time, the future does feel a lot more knowable compared to a year ago.
My philosophy is more akin to what I blogged about earlier in the week: If it's cheap, if the thesis is sound, and if you have the ability to think long-term, then these downturns are when you want to buy. And that is how I'm starting to feel about things right now. This includes everything from real estate to NFTs.
Disclaimer: This is not investment advice.
Let's assume that you're Mayor of your city and that, for whatever reason, you have no need to pander to voters. You're a benevolent dictator. You can do whatever you think is best overall for the city and it will just happen. What would you do? This is more or less the question I asked on Twitter this morning, and I think it's only fair that I answer my own question. So here is a non-exhaustive list of items that came to mind while thinking of Toronto:
Substantially increase the pay of public sector workers throughout the city and bonus them based on measurable outcomes. Forget things like time limits on development applications; instead align incentives. For example, if we're trying to get more shovels in the ground on affordable housing, incentivize people based on building permits issued. I'll never forget what Roger Martin told me while I was at Rotman. When he became Dean of the school, Rotman was a whatever business school that wasn't faring all that competitively in the rankings. One of the problems he discovered was that the school's professors were getting paid far less than those at Wharton, Harvard, Stanford, and so on. So if you were a star, why would you ever want to teach at Rotman? He immediately matched the salaries of those top-tier schools and then, not surprisingly, the top-tier talent arrived. You get what you pay for.
Immediately price roads and congestion, and direct, to the fullest extent possible, the funds toward transit and cycling infrastructure. At the same time, the planning and building of transit would be depoliticized. There would be a reccurring funding stream and a plan that we're continually building out. Minimize protracted debates. Never stop building. There's a lot of talk this mayor election about solving traffic congestion. I have yet to see a plan that will actually work. Accurately pricing congestion likely won't be popular, but I can guarantee you that it will be highly effective.
Ensure that property taxes are sustainably covering the costs of operating the city and then, at a minimum, peg all future increases to CPI.
Make any new housing development less than 12 storeys as-of-right. That would mean, no rezoning process and no site plan approval; just straight to building permit.
Empower the private sector to build affordable housing through incentives and subsidies. Affordable housing isn't feasible to build on its own, which is why nobody is doing it. Inclusionary zoning also won't get us there. Make developers want to build it and they'll do it.
Liberalize licensing and cut red tape to empower small entrepreneurs across the city in various industries. A perfect example in my mind is street food. Toronto is the most diverse city in the world with some of the best restaurants, and yet the only thing you can buy on the street is a stupid hot dog. If we empowered small entrepreneurs to setup shop on our streets, we would easily have the best street food scene in the world. And I am positive that there are countless other latent opportunities in this city that are being held back by dumb and archaic rules.
Make dramatic improvements to our public realm with an eye toward becoming the most beautiful and livable city in the world. Finally pedestrianize Kensington Market, remove the elevated Gardiner Expressway, make it so that we can swim in the Lake, build beautiful public washrooms all across the city that are actually open and aren't gross, and the list goes on. And yes, "beauty" should be requirement so that we don't end up with shit like this.
Focus on art, design, culture, and innovation as central pillars of Toronto's brand. Miami is a good example of what this approach -- along with favourable taxes and nice weather -- can do for a city. I've said this before, but here's just one example: Toronto is in many ways the birthplace of the cryptocurrency Ethereum. Why is nobody talking about this? Why are we not celebrating and leveraging this? It's a missed opportunity. Broadly speaking though, I think just having and doing three things can be effective in promoting new ideas for these pillars: have reasonably affordable housing, be a city that young people want to live in, and remain open and tolerant to immigrants.
Stop thinking of the night-time economy as a nuisance and instead think of it as a powerful economic development tool. I recently responded to this "night economy survey" that the City of Toronto released and the obvious bias is that nighttime things are seen as a terrible nuisance. In other words, "tell us how do we make all of this less annoying for grouchy voters." My response was to extend last call to 4am and to start thinking of it as an opportunity to draw in young people, tourists, and whoever else. This complements my previous point.
This is, again, a completely non-exhaustive list. But if I had to summarize the overall ambition, it would be to make Toronto a truly exceptional and remarkable city. We should never be happy with mediocrity.
What else would you do? Leave a comment below.
Photo by Aditya Chinchure on Unsplash
The Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD) just announced a new 12-month degree called the Master in Real Estate (MRE). Here's a short excerpt about the program:
The MRE program is designed to train future practitioners to address new and urgent realities facing the built environment and cities today. Whether undertaken by for-profit businesses, not-for-profit organizations, or public entities, real estate occupies a pivotal role in determining how the places where we live, work, and play are equitable, environmentally sustainable, and appealing, in addition to being productive for the economy.
The key takeaways are that this is a graduate program being designed for aspiring real estate entrepreneurs and that it will live within Harvard's Graduate School of Design. So there is an implicit recognition that the world of real estate doesn't need to run counter to the pedagogical goals of a design school.
Anyone who went to architecture school will tell you that real estate is often viewed as the "dark side." Either you commit yourself to the pure world of architecture and design, or you sell out and seek profits in the world of real estate. But I have always considered this to be a false dichotomy.
Real estate is a fundamental component of how we shape our built environment. And so if one's ambitions are to improve the built environment -- which is something that architecture schools do teach you -- why should the delivery vehicle matter? Shouldn't we be encouraging people to optimize for maximum benefit?
I completed my undergraduate degree in architecture. But very early on I had the feeling that I was only getting one piece of a larger picture. And so I went to the University of Pennsylvania for graduate school and completed a degree that combined both architecture and real estate. My goal was to figure out a way to combine both passions. Maybe I'd become the next Jonathan Segal.
Penn was very open to cross-disciplinary studies at the time (this was the mid-2000s), but there was still a gaping divide between the school of design and the business school. Walking across campus meant taking off one hat and putting on another. There wasn't a lot of overlap.
After school, I returned to Toronto and started working in development. I then decided to pursue my MBA part-time, which really wasn't necessary for my career, but was probably driven by some sort of insecurity I felt at Penn. I was the outsider design student (with funny glasses I might add) trying to keep up with Wharton MBAs.
I went back to the University of Toronto for my MBA and thoroughly enjoyed it. But I still couldn't understand why there was such little overlap between the design school and the business school when it came to matters of the built environment. The real estate courses at Rotman were also extremely limited at the time.
So I started talking to faculty members: What would it took to create a joint real estate program that lived somewhere between the design school and the business school? I offered to help and I tried to press upon everyone that this was a gaping void and a huge opportunity. Canada was falling behind in terms of real estate education. It was time to step up.
The answer I got was generally always twofold: (1) Rotman's real estate courses were already good enough and (2) it's pretty hard to start a new program at the University. You have to do a bunch of things, one of which includes finding money. So, sorry.
Harvard's new Master in Real Estate degree is the kind of program I had in mind. So I'm happy to see others taking action. And I ultimately think it will be a good thing for our cities.
If you'd like to apply, you can do that starting this fall.