Some four years ago, people were talking about the possibility of New York City being dead. But of course that was nonsense. Last week, New York City published the initial findings of its housing and vacancy survey and the key takeaway is that the city's vacancy rate dropped to 1.41% last year (2023). This is a drop from 4.54% just two years ago and the lowest measurement since 1968. It's also even worse at more affordable rent levels:

The problem, as described by the city, is a supply-demand imbalance. Over the last two years, the city's net housing stock grew by about 60,000 homes (~2%). This is, apparently, pretty good compared to recent years/decades; but it wasn't nearly enough given that the city added 275,000 new households. This is the opposite of dead, and it's not going to be addressed by just doing things like restricting short-term rentals.

We have a structural delivery problem and New York City is not alone in facing it.

The Journal published a piece this past week talking about China's $52 trillion residential property bubble. According to a recent study by Goldman Sachs, this is the current value of all Chinese homes (built homes and developer inventory). And to put this number into perspective, it is twice that of the U.S. residential market.

Now, I don't know all that much about the Chinese housing market and I have no idea where prices will go next. But it is interesting to look at some of the data, particularly in light of this current pandemic. Urban home prices in China were up 4.9% year-over-year in June, and 1.9% year-to-date. Shenzhen appears to be one of, if not the hottest market. Why is that?

At the same time, it is believed that about 21% of urban homes in China were vacant as of 2017. I don't know what the figure is today, but this is a high number. As of last year, urban China also had a homeownership rate of about 96%. (Here is a look at how this number compares with other countries around the world.)

What is clear is that Chinese households are going long property, and eschewing other investments such as stocks and bonds. Above is a chart showing how China compares to the US, where bonds lead, followed by stocks. Presumably it is because property is viewed as a safer and more lucrative investment in China.

According to a report by China Guangfa and the Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, urban Chinese have on average about 78% of their wealth tied up in residential real estate. Many own multiple homes. In the U.S., this figure is about 35%. (I don't know what the number is for Canada, but I would be interested to know.)

Call me old fashioned, but I think it's important to keep in mind things like rental demand and cash flow when thinking of property.

All figures and charts from the WSJ.

Some four years ago, people were talking about the possibility of New York City being dead. But of course that was nonsense. Last week, New York City published the initial findings of its housing and vacancy survey and the key takeaway is that the city's vacancy rate dropped to 1.41% last year (2023). This is a drop from 4.54% just two years ago and the lowest measurement since 1968. It's also even worse at more affordable rent levels:

The problem, as described by the city, is a supply-demand imbalance. Over the last two years, the city's net housing stock grew by about 60,000 homes (~2%). This is, apparently, pretty good compared to recent years/decades; but it wasn't nearly enough given that the city added 275,000 new households. This is the opposite of dead, and it's not going to be addressed by just doing things like restricting short-term rentals.

We have a structural delivery problem and New York City is not alone in facing it.

The Journal published a piece this past week talking about China's $52 trillion residential property bubble. According to a recent study by Goldman Sachs, this is the current value of all Chinese homes (built homes and developer inventory). And to put this number into perspective, it is twice that of the U.S. residential market.

Now, I don't know all that much about the Chinese housing market and I have no idea where prices will go next. But it is interesting to look at some of the data, particularly in light of this current pandemic. Urban home prices in China were up 4.9% year-over-year in June, and 1.9% year-to-date. Shenzhen appears to be one of, if not the hottest market. Why is that?

At the same time, it is believed that about 21% of urban homes in China were vacant as of 2017. I don't know what the figure is today, but this is a high number. As of last year, urban China also had a homeownership rate of about 96%. (Here is a look at how this number compares with other countries around the world.)

What is clear is that Chinese households are going long property, and eschewing other investments such as stocks and bonds. Above is a chart showing how China compares to the US, where bonds lead, followed by stocks. Presumably it is because property is viewed as a safer and more lucrative investment in China.

According to a report by China Guangfa and the Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, urban Chinese have on average about 78% of their wealth tied up in residential real estate. Many own multiple homes. In the U.S., this figure is about 35%. (I don't know what the number is for Canada, but I would be interested to know.)

Call me old fashioned, but I think it's important to keep in mind things like rental demand and cash flow when thinking of property.

All figures and charts from the WSJ.