Here is an interesting working paper that assesses the effect of new market-rate housing construction on the low-income housing market:

Increasing supply is frequently proposed as a solution to rising housing costs. However, there is little evidence on how new market-rate construction—which is typically expensive—affects the market for lower quality housing in the short run. I begin by using address history data to identify 52,000 residents of new multifamily buildings in large cities, their previous address, the current residents of those addresses, and so on. This sequence quickly adds lower-income neighborhoods, suggesting that strong migratory connections link the low-income market to new construction. Next, I combine the address histories with a simulation model to estimate that building 100 new market-rate units leads 45-70 and 17-39 people to move out of below-median and bottom-quintile income tracts, respectively, with almost all of the effect occurring within five years. This suggests that new construction reduces demand and loosens the housing market in low and middle-income areas, even in the short run.

This paper is not suggesting that everything will be fine so long as you build lots of new and expensive market-rate housing. But it is suggesting that a "filtering" of housing downward does oftentimes take place.

When you build new supply, you tend to free up some existing supply, and that generally has the opposite effect of what we recently spoke about here, which is an instance of housing filtering upward.

Levered assets, such as real estate, tend to have prices that are correlated with interest rates. Lower rates usually translate into higher asset prices. We are living through this kind of environment right now. And so it is generally valuable to have a view on where rates might go next.

To do that, it can be helpful to look back at history. And a lot of the time, that look goes as far back as the second half of the 20th century. I wasn't buying real estate in the 1970s and 1980s, but I am often reminded -- by people older than me -- that this was a period of high inflation and high interest rates.

But what about an even longer period of time?

Paul Schmelzing (visiting researcher at the Bank of England) has a pioneering working paper that was published last year which looks at global interest rates over a 707 year time horizon. His research spans the period of 1311 to 2018 and uses archives and many other sources to try and reconstruct annual rates across the world's advanced economies.

Below are two charts from the paper that I found interesting. The first represents the data that was used to weight long-term debt yields across the various advanced economies. My how things change when you take a long enough view. It also shows the share of advanced economy real GDP that is captured by the study (it's about ~80% -- the red line below).

The second chart shows the headline global real rate from 1317 to 2018. And what Schmelzing discovers is that even when you look across many different monetary and fiscal regimes, real interest rates have never really ever been stable. In fact, when you look as far back as the 14th century, real interest rates have on average declined about 0.6 to 1.6 basis points per year.

So part of his argument is that what we are seeing today maybe isn't all that strange; it's actually expected. For a copy of the full working paper, click here.

Images: Bank of England

Richard Voith and Jing Liu of Philadelphia-based Econsult, along with a bunch of other smart coauthors, have just published a working paper looking at the effects of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) on home prices. More specifically, they looked at the impact that LIHTC-financed properties have had in Los Angeles -- both in low-income and high-income neighborhoods, as well as when it's the first LIHTC development in the area or a subsequent one. Some of you might be assuming that low-income housing is likely to create downward pressure on home prices. But the authors found the opposite to be true. Below is the paper's abstract. If you'd like to download a copy of the full working paper, you can do that over here.

Abstract: While there is widespread agreement about the importance of the Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit (LIHTC) in addressing the country’s affordable housing needs, there is less certainty about the effects of LIHTC-financed properties on their surrounding neighborhoods. A growing body of research has largely refuted the argument that affordable housing properties in and of themselves have negative effects on local property values and increase crime rates. Several key questions remain essentially unanswered, however. First, for how long do the observed spillover benefits of LIHTC construction last? Second, does the development of multiple LIHTC properties in a neighborhood have an additive, supplemental effect on surrounding conditions, or is there a threshold at which the concentration of such properties – and the predominantly low-income individuals they house – negatively affects the neighborhood?

In this paper, we focus on Los Angeles County, a large, diverse urban area with significant affordability challenges. Drawing upon both public and proprietary property sales data, we conduct interrupted time series analyses to ascertain whether property value trends differed prior and subsequent to the introduction of a LIHTC-financed property in the community. We find that LIHTC properties positively impact surrounding housing values across the spectrum of Los Angeles’ neighborhoods. Further the concentration of multiple LIHTC properties in a neighborhood additively increases housing prices up to ½ mile away. Finally, these effects though of greater magnitude in lower-income neighborhoods, are fully present in high-income neighborhoods.

Image: Econsult