Showing posts with label Property prices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Property prices. Show all posts

Monday, November 20, 2017

20/11/17: Wait till rates normalization hits the property markets


In the context of the ongoing Chinese debt bubble crisis (yet to explode into a full crisis, but the timer is ticking ominously), the ZeroHedge presented the following chart:


The dire state of the global economy post-QE waves of 2008-2017 is reflected in the vast asset bubbles building up across the main markets, with Canada, China, Australia leading the surge, while the U.S. residential property prices are now also at historical peak (previous peak reading was at 184.62 against current at 195.05):

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSUSHPINSA.

New Zealand is not far off from its neighbour, Australia:

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QNZN628BIS.

In short, things are getting beyond the pre-2007 bubble levels and the risks of a blowout in global property markets are rising. All we need is a catalyst for breach, which is likely to be either a ramp up in credit costs in the advanced economies or a tightening of credit in China, or both.

Friday, October 6, 2017

5/10/11: The Swedish Crises of 1910s & 1990s: The Lessons Never Learned


Here is an interesting piece of evidence on the nature of real estate bubbles and financial crises these create. One of the largest fallouts from property-driven financial crises in modern European history relates to the early 1991-1992 blowout in Sweden that saw massive collapse in property prices triggering a systemic contagion to financial institutions, The resolution process and the recovery that followed were long. Just about 10 years - the time it took the real property prices to regain their pre-crisis peak.

Source: Zerohedge

But the bigger story is a hundred-years-long bust to recovery cycle that took Stockholm's property prices from 1910 peak until 2007.

What is, however, most telling is the fact that Stockholm's markets show conclusively and without any doubt that all the lessons supposedly 'learned' in the past crises have been un-learned in the aftermath of the 2007-2008 Global Financial Bust. Despite the painful recovery from the 1991-1992, and despite huge efforts put by the successive Governments into highlighting regulatory and market structure reforms that followed it, Swedish property markets have gone into another, this time completely unprecedented in the country history, craze. 

Stockholm is a city that has been so reformed post the 1990s, it makes more sense to live in a hotel, at least in some cases (http://www.businessinsider.com/stockholm-rents-are-so-high-its-often-cheaper-to-live-in-a-hotel-2017-8). It is, of course, worth remembering that Stockholm is the equivalent of 'warm dream' for all rent control enthusiasts worldwide and for all 'moar regulation will save us from ourselves' crowds.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

8/12/15: Irish Rents: A Longer Term View


Much has been written about the plight of renters in Ireland. Much of it is correct - there have been some atrocious rises in rents, primarily private rents, in recent years. Year on year, in the last 3 months (though October 2015), private rents rose 10.35% against local authority rents falling 1.11% and mortgage interest declining 8.88%. A year ago - over 3mo through October 2014, private rents inflation was running at 8.95% against local authorities rents rising 1.06% and mortgage interest falling 10.26%.

Which makes for a depressing reading for the renters. Actual rents paid by tenants were up 8.83% in 3mo period through October 2015 and they rose 7.93% y/y in the 3mo period through October 2014. So inflation rate in rents is going up.

However, rents inflation has to be taken over the longer period of time. And here, things are not as clear cut as in the short run. Comparable CSO data goes only back to January 2003. So we have no reliable benchmark for earlier periods, albeit some bootstrapped comparatives are possible. As the result, let’s consider 1Q 2003 as the starting point for inflation - with a host of caveats attached.

Setting 1Q 2003 average level of price indices at 100, inflation in overall Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels category that includes rents, mortgages and other housing costs stood at 55.94% in October 2015. Actual rentals paid by tenants over the same period of time were up 26.93%. Private rents rose over 1Q 2003 to October 2015 by 18.62% while local authority rents rose 73.36% and mortgages rose 24.33%.

In other words, cumulated inflation since 1Q 2003 was higher in Local authority rents and mortgage interest than in private rents. Chart below illustrates:



Pretty much the same picture emerges if we take the entire 2003 average (not just 1Q 2003) as a benchmark. In fact, compared to 2003 levels, mortgage interest inflation is just above actual rents paid and is still higher than private rents inflation.

Setting levels aside, let’s take a look at inflation rates (y/y changes in indices). Historical average y/y inflation in Housing, Water, Electricity, Gas & Other fuels category is 4.50% against historical mortgages interest costs inflation of 5.29%, historical private rents inflation of 1.56%, historical local authorities rents inflation of 4.56% and historical inflation in actual rentals paid by tenants of 2.00%.


Once again, timing is everything: given low level of transactions in the purchasing markets for property over the current crisis, majority of mortgage payees today have lived through the period of pre-crisis spike in mortgage costs. Their current savings (reduced cost of mortgages interest) are simply lagged off-sets to this high cost reality of the past. On the other hand, renters faced far lower volatility in rents than mortgagees in mortgage interest. Their current pain is a delayed cost uplift on past moderation in inflation.

Which is, of course, not to say there is less pain because of this or that Irish rental markets are somehow functioning well in terms of pricing. Just to point out that timing of comparatives is important and that one should be careful pitching the (real) pain of Irish renters against the allegedly easy-times for other participants in the markets.

Friday, May 15, 2015

15/5/15: Monetary Titanic & Bubbles Troubles


Food for thought this morning - two links:

Note, first link above cites low worker productivity. Here's a slide from my recent (this week) presentation on same: 

And here is my view on the Irish property bubble (in development, but not yet fully manifested):


What is interesting about the Irish property markets is that whilst price and activity levels are not yet at concern points, the rates of increases in commercial rents and declines in yields, and rates of rises in residential property prices in Dublin are clearly fuelling a massive hype by real estate agents and the media. This is hardly consistent with a 'healthy' market.

I will be speaking about the financial valuations bubbles, focusing on M&As and strategy for avoiding these, next week at http://rebel.alltech.com/ so stay tuned for slides on that next week.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

3/1/2015: Can LTV Cap Policies Stabilise Housing Markets?


The Central Bank of Ireland late last year unveiled a set of proposals aimed at cooling Irish property markets, including the controversial caps on LTV ratios on new mortgages. And this generated loads of controversy, shrill cries about the cooling effect of caps on property development and even speculations that the caps will put a boot into rapidly rising (Dublin) property prices. In response, our heroic property agents unleashed a torrent of arguments about supply, demand, sparrows and larks - all propelling the property prices to new levels, 'despite' the CBI measures announced (see for example here:  http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/property-prices-set-to-rise-despite-lending-cap-plan-30879087.html for a sample of property marketers exhortations on matters econometric).

But never, mind the above. Truth is, the measures announced by the CBI are genuinely, for good economic reasons, have low probability of actually having a serious impact on property prices. At least all real (as opposed to property agents' economists') evidence provides for such a conclusion.

A recent paper by Kuttner, Kenneth N. and Shim, Ilhyock, titled "Can Non-Interest Rate Policies Stabilise Housing Markets? Evidence from a Panel of 57 Economies" (BIS Working Paper No. 433: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2397680) used data from 57 countries over the period spanning more than three decades, to investigatee "the effectiveness of nine non-interest rate policy tools, including macro-prudential measures, in stabilising house prices and housing credit."

The authors found that "in conventional panel regressions, housing credit growth is significantly affected by changes in the maximum debt-service-to-income (DSTI) ratio, the maximum loan-to-value ratio, limits on exposure to the housing sector and housing-related taxes. But only the DSTI ratio limit has a significant effect on housing credit growth when we use mean group and panel event study methods. Among the policies considered, a change in housing-related taxes is the only policy tool with a discernible impact on house price appreciation."

On DSTI finding, the authors estimate that setting a maximum DSTI ratio as the policy tool allows for a typical policy-related tightening, "slowing housing credit growth by roughly 4 to 7 percentage points over the following four quarters." In addition, on tax effectiveness, the authors found that while "an increase in housing-related taxes can slow the growth of house prices", this result is "sensitive to the choice of econometric method" used in model estimation.

Finally, on CBI-favoured LTV limits: "Of the two policies targeted at the demand side of the market, the evidence indicates that reductions in the maximum LTV ratio do less to slow credit growth than lowering the maximum DSTI ratio does. This may be because during housing booms, rising prices increase the amount that can be borrowed, partially or wholly offsetting any tightening of the LTV ratio."

In other words, once prices are rising, LTV caps are not terribly effective in controlling house price inflation.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

13/7/2014: Ireland v Spain: Property Markets Signal Fundamentals-Linked Growth Potential


Two charts showing why Ireland can expect more robust correction in the property prices post-crisis trough:

First, investment in new construction:


The above shows that Irish construction investment dropped more significantly than in the case of (relatively comparable) Spain. This implies that we have been facing longer and deeper reductions in new stock additions than Spain, implying greater pressures on new supply.

Second, House Price to Income ratios (ignore caption):


Irish property prices have fallen more relative to income than Spanish prices. Which implies that penned up demand is greater in Ireland.

So there you have it, two (not all, of course) fundamentals driving prices recovery up in Ireland and both have little to do with the potential bubble dynamics.


Note: above charts are from IMF's Article IV Consultation Paper for Spain.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

5/6/2014: Irish Commercial Property Values Forward...


Lost decade in Irish non-residential property? 

Based on IPD quarterly index, here is an exercise in basic forecasting (take it as just a stab in the dark - things can go all over the shop in a small economy, like Ireland) for capital values returns for 4 asset classes of Irish non-residential property.

The forecast is based on 'better case' scenario that assumes rates of growth from Q2 2014 on that reflect:
  • Last 3 quarters growth rates in Retail, Office and All Property indices, which are respectively: Retail 1.9% q/q (4 quarters growth rate is less benign at 1.0%); Office 4.3% (4 quarters rate is 3.5%); All Property 3.1% (4 quarters rate is 2.3%); and
  • Last 4 quarters growth rate of 2.3% for All Property taken as growth rate for Industrial class (own Industrial Class 3 quarters growth rate is 0% and own 4 quarters growth rate is negative - 0.2%).



And the 'lost decade' in capital values is:
  • For Retail sector: 19 years
  • For Office sector: 13 years
  • For Industrial sector: 23 years
  • For All Property sector: 16 years 



Some 'decade' that is… and the numbers are not out to the peak-to-peak levels, as peak valuations took place around Q3 2007 and the exercise is from Q4 2006, when all above asset classes capital valuations were below the peak by between 9.2 and 10.5 percent. The exercise does not cover explicit outlook for interest rates or credit flows associated with it. Nor does it account for the overhang of land held by Nama. The key point here is really to show three things:
  1. It will take a long, very long time for the markets to come around; and
  2. So far, turnaround was not miraculous or dramatic, as some agents would led you to believe...
  3. Finally, in one segment - Offices - we do have some rays of hope - both uplift and dynamics of that uplift are supportive of the stronger case than what I expected back in the days of 2010, when Nama was unloading properties off the banks balancesheets.

Friday, February 21, 2014

21/2/2014: Homeownership, Negative Equity, Entrepreneurship: Data from France


Over recent years I wrote extensively about the issues of negative equity and the costs of this phenomena to the society and economy at large. Much of the research in this areas focuses on the US data, with some departures for German and Italian data sets. Here is a recent paper using French data and dealing with the issue of housing collateral (house prices-linked borrowing constraints) and entrepreneurship.

"HOUSING COLLATERAL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP" by Martin C. Schmalz, David A. Sraer, David Thesmar (Working Paper 19680 http://www.nber.org/papers/w19680) provides evidence on whether entrepreneurs "face credit constraints, which restrict firm creation, post-entry growth, and survival, even over the long run. The existing literature documents a strong correlation between entrepreneurial wealth and the propensity to start or keep a business (Evans and Jovanovic, 1989; Evans and Leighton, 1989; Holtz-Eakin et al., 1993)."

The problem is that there is still "a considerable debate …about whether such a correlation constitutes evidence of financial constraints. For instance, individuals who experience a wealth shock, through personal accumulation or inheritance, may also experience an expansion of business opportunities for reasons unrelated to their wealth (Hurst and Lusardi, 2004)."

The authors used "variations in local house prices, combined with micro-level data on home ownership by entrepreneurs. …We compare entrepreneurial outcomes of entrepreneurs owning a house and entrepreneurs renting a house, and compare this difference across geographic regions with different house price dynamics. The comparison between owners and non-owners allows us to filter out local economic shocks that may drive the creation, growth, and survival of local businesses." Do note the important aspect of this data set - by controlling for home ownership v renters, the paper also allows us to look at the potential benefits of the former or the latter in terms of entrepreneurship.

"We investigate both the extensive and intensive margin of entrepreneurship, that is, entry decisions as well as post-entry growth. Our investigation starts with firm growth and survival, conditional on entry. We construct a large cross section of French entrepreneurs starting a businesses in 1998. Combining survey data and administrative data, we are able to observe a variety of personal characteristics, in particular, the home location of the entrepreneurs, as well as their home-ownership status. We match this information to firm-level accounting data of the newly created firms for up to eight years following creation."

Now for the results: 

  • "We find that in regions with greater house price growth in the 1990s, firms started by homeowners in 1998 are significantly larger and more likely to survive than firms started by renters." Oops, for the folks saying that homeownership should not be encouraged or incentivised. "In other words, the difference in the size of businesses created by owners and renters is larger in regions in which house prices have appreciated more in the past five years. 
  • This effect is robust to controlling for a large set of entrepreneurial characteristics. It is also persistent: in 2005, firms started by entrepreneurs with lower collateral values in 1998 remain significantly smaller in terms of assets, sales, employment, or value added. 
  • Finally, this effect is economically large: going from the 25th to the 75th percentile of house price growth in the five years preceding creation allows homeowners to create firms that are 6.5% larger in terms of total assets."
  • "We then verify how collateral shocks affect the probability of starting a business, that is, the extensive margin of entrepreneurship. …We find that homeowners located in regions where house prices appreciate more are significantly more likely to create businesses, relative to renters located in the same regions. In other words, the difference between owners and renters in the propensity to start a business is larger in regions in which house prices appreciated more in the past. 
  • Again, the effects are economically sizable. Going from the 25th to the 75th percentile of past house price growth increases the probability of firm creation by homeowners, relative to renters, by 9% in our preferred specification."
  • More to the above: "We confirm the importance of this result in the aggregate: total firm creation at the regional level is more correlated with house prices in regions where the fraction of homeowners is larger."


As an aside, consider also the following discussion from the paper: The link between funding of start ups and wealth constraints is non-trivial. "Robb and Robinson (2013) document that debt is a large source of financing for start-ups (approximately 44%) and that its availability is related to the scarcity —and therefore the value— of real estate collateral. Hurst and Lusardi (2004) and Adelino et al. (2013) are closest to our paper, because they also investigate the role of housing wealth on firm creation."

However, the latest paper "makes two significant advances relative to these papers:

  1. the information on individual homeownership allows us to control for local economic shocks that might create a spurious correlation between entrepreneurial rate and local house prices, and 
  2. the nature of our data allows us to track not only firm creation (the extensive margin), but also post-entry growth and survival over a long horizon (the intensive margin)."

"Several earlier papers focus on the role of inheritance shocks to firm quality and survival. Holtz-Eakin et al. (1993) find that firms started after a large inheritance are more likely to survive, a finding they interpret as evidence of credit constraints. By contrast, using Danish data, Andersen and Nielsen (2011) find that businesses started following a large inheritance have lower performance. This finding suggests the relationship between wealth and entrepreneurship may be driven by private benefits of control, or in other words, that business ownership has a luxury-good component (Hurst and Lusardi, 2004). The relation between wealth shocks and post-entry growth/survival thus remains an open discussion."

The latest paper "contributes to this debate by looking at wealth shocks generated by local variations in house prices for homeowners. Arguably, these shocks are much less likely to be correlated with the unobserved heterogeneity in entrepreneurial outcome than inheritance shocks."

"Fracassi et al. (2012) also provide a clean identification on the role credit constraints play small business survival, by exploiting a discontinuity in the attribution of loans to start-ups at a small local bank. In a similar vein, Black and Strahan (2002) find that banking deregulations in U.S. states led to a large increase in firm creations. Whereas these papers focus on the effect credit supply on firm creation and survival, our paper focuses on credit demand via the supply of collateral."

There is an intuitive link between the above forces: "When house prices increase, firms and households have more collateral to pledge, which raises borrowing capacity. On the credit-supply size, banks, balance sheets become stronger, which allows them to lend more. Recent papers have documented the link between house prices and household borrowing and consumption (Mian et al., 2011; Gan, 2010), the link between real estate prices and corporate investment (Gan, 2007a; Chaney et al., 2012), and the link between real estate bubbles and bank lending (Gan, 2007b)."

And the conclusion is: "Our paper shows that entrepreneurial activity also strongly reacts to changes in the value of collateral available to potential entrepreneurs."

So back to that 'negative equity only matters for those who want to move from their current house' meme that Irish economists and policymakers keep pushing around… My suggestion: go back to study economics, folks.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

23/1/2014: A Troubled Recovery: Sunday Times, January 12


This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column from January 12, 2014.


To some extent, the forward-looking data on the Irish economy coming out in recent months resemble the brilliant compositions of Richard Mosse – Ireland's leading artist at the venerable La Biennale di Venezia, 2013 (http://www.richardmosse.com/works/the-enclave/). Mosse show in Venice comprised sweeping photographic landscapes of war-affected Eastern Kongo rendered in crimson and pink hues of hope.

In our case, the rose-tinted hues of improving recent data are colouring in hope over the adversity of the Great Recession, now 6 years in the running. Beneath it all, however, the debt crisis is still running unabated.


This week, Purchasing Manager Indices (PMIs), published by Markit and Investec, signaled a booming Q4 2013 economy. Services PMIs averaged 59.7 over the last quarter of 2013, well above the zero-growth mark of 50. Alas, the Services PMI readings have been showing expansion in every quarter since Q1 2010, just as economy was going through a recession. The latest Manufacturing PMIs averaged 53.6 over the Q4 2013, implying two consecutive quarters of growth in the sector. Sadly, manufacturing activity, as reported by CSO was down substantially year on year through October. Things might have improved since then, but we will have to wait to see the actual evidence of this. Past history, however, suggests this is unlikely: PMIs posted nine months of growth in the sector over the twelve months through October 2013, CSO's indicator of actual activity in the sector printed seven monthly declines. Rosy forward outlook of PMIs is overlaying a rather bleak reality.

But the story of fabled economic growth is not limited to the PMIs alone. Property markets were up in 2013, boosted, allegedly, by the over-exuberance of international and domestic investors, and by the penned up demand from the cash-rich, jobs-holding homebuyers. No one is quite capable of explaining where these cash riches are coming from. Based on deposits figures, Irish property buyers are not taking much of cash out of the banks to fund purchases of South Dublin homes. They might be digging money out of the fields or chasing the proverbial leprechauns’ riches or doing something else in order to pump billions into the property markets. Still, residential property prices are up year on year. Alas, all of these gains are due to Dublin alone: in the capital, residential real estate prices rose 14.5 percent over the last 12 months. In the rest of the country they fell 0.5 percent.

Fuelled by rising rents (up 7.6 percent year on year) and property prices, the construction sector also swelled with the stories of a rebound. Not a week goes by without a report about some investment fund 'taking a bet on Ireland's recovery' by betting long on real estate loans or buildings, or buying into development land banks. Thus, Building and Construction sector activity in Q3 2013 has reached the levels of output comparable with those last seen in Q4 2010. Not that it was a year marked by robust activity either, but growth is growth, right? Not exactly. Stripping out Civil Engineering, building and construction activity in Ireland is currently lingering at the levels compatible with those seen in H2 2011. Worse, Residential Building activity was down year-on-year in Q3 2013. Meanwhile, in line with other PMI indicators, Construction PMI, published by Markit and Ulster Bank, suggests that the sector has been booming from September 2013 on. Again, more data is required to confirm this, but CSO's records for planning permissions show declines in activity across the sector.

The truth is that no matter how desperately we seek a confirmation of growth, the recovery to-date is removed from the real economy we inhabit. As the Q3 2013 national accounts amply illustrated, the domestic economy is still slipping. In the nine months of 2013, personal consumption of goods and services fell EUR734 million in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, while gross domestic capital formation (a proxy for investment) declined EUR381 million. Thus, final domestic demand - the amount spent in the domestic economy on purchases of current and capital goods and services - fell EUR1.3 billion or 1.4 percent. In Q2 2013 Irish Final Domestic Demand figure dipped below EUR30 billion mark for the first time since the comparable records began back in Q1 2008, while Q3 2013 reading was the third lowest Q3 on record.

Beyond Q3, the latest retail sales data for November 2013, released this week, was also poor. Even stripping out the motor trades, core retail sales were basically flat on 2012 levels in both volume and value.


With domestic economy de facto stagnant and under a constant risk of renewed decline, Ireland remains in the grip of the classic debt deflation crisis or a balancesheet recession.

The usual canary in the mine of such a crisis is credit supply. Per latest data from the Central Bank, volumes of loans outstanding in the private economy continued to fall through November 2013. Average levels of credit extended to households fell almost 4 percent in Q4 2013 compared to 2012 levels. Loans to non-financial corporations fell some 5 percent over the same period.

Total private sector deposits are up marginally y/y for Q4 2013, but household deposits are down. Thus, recent improvements in the health of Irish banks are down to retained profits and tax buffers being retained by the corporates. Put differently, the canary is still down, motionless at the bottom of the cage.

In this environment, last thing Ireland needs is re-acceleration in business and household costs inflation. Yet this acceleration is now an ongoing threat. Courtesy of the 'hidden' Budget 2014 measures Irish taxpayers and consumers are facing an increases in taxes and state charges of some EUR2,000 per household. Health insurance, water supplies, transport, energy, and a host of other price increases will hit the economy hard.

And after the Minister for Finance takes his share, the banks will be coming for more. The cost of credit in Ireland has been rising even prior to the banks levies passed in Budget 2014. In 3 months through October 2013, interest rates for new and existing loans to households and non-financial corporations were up on average some 19-23 basis points. Deposits rates were down 71 bps. Based on ECB latest statistics, the rate of credit cost inflation in Ireland is now running at up to ten times the euro area average.

In other words, we are bailing in savers and investors, while squeezing consumers and taxpayers.


These trends largely confirm the main argument advanced in the IMF research paper, authored by Karmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff and published last December. The paper argues that in response to the global debt crisis, the massive wave of financial repression is now rising across advanced economies. The authors warn that economic growth alone may not be enough to deflate the debt pile accumulated by the Governments in the advanced economies prior to and during the current crisis. Instead, a number of economies, including are facing higher long-term inflation in the future, and lower savings and investment. The menu of traditional measures associated with dealing with the debt crises in the past, covering both advanced and developing economies experiences, includes also less benign policies, such as capital controls, direct deposits bail-ins, as well as higher taxes and charges.

Ireland is a good example of the above responses. Since 2011 we have witnessed pension funds levies and increases in savings and investment taxes. We also have witnessed state-controlled and taxed sectors pushing prices ever higher to increase the rate of Government revenue extraction. Budget 2014 banks levy is another example. Given the current state of banking services in Ireland, the entire burden of the levy is going to fall onto the shoulders of ordinary borrowers and depositors. Insurance sector was bailed-in, primarily via massive increases in the cost of health cover and reduced tax deductibility of health-related spending.

As Reinhart and Rogoff note, historically, debt crises tend to be associated with a significantly lower growth and are marked by long-run painful adjustments. The average debt crisis in the advanced economies since the WWII lasted 23 years – much longer than the fabled ‘lost decade’ on reads about in the Irish media.

All of which goes to the heart of the today’s growth dilemma in Ireland: while macroeconomic performance is improving, tangible growth anchored in domestic economy is still lacking. The good news i: foreign investors rarely look at the realities on the ground, beyond the macroeconomic headlines. The bad news is: majority us live in these realities.



Box-out: 

This column's mailbox greeted the arrival of 2014 with a litany of sales pitches from various funds managers. All were weighing heavily on ‘hard’ performance metrics, with boastful claims about 1- and 5-year returns. While appearing to be ‘hard’, these quotes present a misleading picture of the actual funds’ performance. The reason for this is simple: end of 2008 – beginning of 2009 represented a bottom of the markets collapse.

Over the last 10 years, annual returns to the S&P500 index averaged roughly 5 percent. This is less than one third of the 15.5 percent annualised returns for the index over the last 5 years. In Irish case, the comparatives are even more striking. Five-year annualised rise in ISEQ runs at around 12 percent. Meanwhile 10-year returns are negative at 1.2 percent.

Since no one likes quoting losses, the industry is only happy to see the dark days of the early 2009 falling into-line with the 5 year metric benchmark: the lower the depth of the depression past, the better the numbers look today.

The problem is that even the ten-year returns figures are often bogus. The quotes, based on index performance, usually ignore the fact that the very composition of the markets has changed significantly during the crisis. This is especially pronounced in the case of ISEQ. In recent years, ISE witnessed massive exits of larger companies from its listings. Destruction of banking and construction sector in Ireland compounded this trend. Put simply, investors should be we weary of the industry penchant for putting forward five-year returns quotes: too often, there's more wishful marketing in these numbers than reality.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

12/1/2013: House Prices Valuations via The Economist


An interesting table from The Economist (link) on house prices in select countries (H/T to @greentak ):


Note, obviously, Ireland. Not the bits on changes in prices, but the -1% under-valuation on rents side and -5% under-valuation on disposable income side. This is interesting because, in my opinion, the prices currently are in a 'bounce-along-the-bottom' pattern.

Here are some points of thought:

  • Usually, house prices over-correct, overshooting the longer-term equilibrium levels. This implies that if we are currently close to the bottoming-out of prices (I am not saying we are), then there is a fundamentals-driven upside of small proportion. 1-5% might be a reasonable range.
  • Another feature is the gap in 'under-valuation' between rents-implied and incomes-implied. We have no idea what disposable income The Economist has in mind (GNI? earnings? etc - and these are non-trivial), but we do know they have 'per person' metric. Per person of working age? or children counted in as well? Setting these and other issues aside, the gap between the two is, roughly, reflected in probably two main factors: supply of rentable accommodation relative to demand (which is keeping rents lower, relative to income) and distribution of income (with more potential renters in lower income brackets, while more existent homeowners in higher, implying that renters can't convert into purchasers, while feasible purchasers have no need to go into the market). In other words, the gap is very wide and is significant, in my view, of the tenuous nature of income-based price assessments.
  • The 1-5% undervaluation today, on the slope as steep (-49.4% since 2007) is highly unlikely to be the range of reasonable overshooting of the longer-term prices. In other words, if past experiences are a guide, Irish house prices can easily fall another 10% or more even if we consider the above table-listed drivers alone.
Now, as per arguments that these under-valuations are going to drive the market up, just look at Germany. According to The Economist, German house prices have an upside of 17% both on rental valuations and income valuations bases. Good luck, if you expect that to materialise. 

In short, I am not so sure the above table is meaningful in any sense. Nice to see that someone out there thinks Irish housing markets are undervalued, but I am still to be convinced that this is (a) real, and (b) likely to lead to sustained values increases. 

If you are keen to look at some interactive charts on the above data, go here.

And if you are keen on checking out one crazy property market... look here:


Friday, September 14, 2012

14/9/2012: Another Indo 'Property Boom Cometh' Missive


An interesting article in the Indo on house prices vs debate about the property tax or site value tax - link here.

A key phrase that caught my eye is: "CSO reports show that prices increased in Dublin".

The latest CSO report we have is that covering data through July 2012, which states:

  • Dublin All Residential Properties: June prices down 1.0% m/m (down 0.3% on 3 mo before June, down 16.4% on 12 month to June 2012); July prices down 0.3% m/m (down 1.2% on 3mo before and down 16.6% on 12 mo before);
  • Dublin Houses: June down 0.8% m/m (0.2% on 3 mo ago, down 16.4% y/y) and July down 0.2% m/m (down 0.5% on 3mo ago and down 16.7% on a year ago);
  • Dublin Apartments down m/m, on 3mo and y/y in May, June and in July down 3.9% m/m, down 8.6% on 3 mo previous and down 19.6% on 12 mo ago.
So unless Indo has either discovered some new data set from CSO, or it has some CSO data on dog houses and parking spots in Dublin (all of which might have gone up in July), then what on earth are they talking about?