19/2/20: Early effects of the 2020 Berlin rent controls changes

New research from Germany's ifo Institute and Immowelt looked at the effects of the new rent caps (rent controls) in Berlin. The findings are consistent with what we observe in other major cities with rent controls:

• "In Berlin, the rent for almost all apartments advertised on real estate portal immowelt.de (96.7 percent) is above the rent cap."
• "In 83.5 percent of cases, the rent exceeds the cap by over 20 percent."
• "Rent on apartments covered by the law has risen considerably more slowly since the cap was announced".
• But, "rent on apartments outside the scope of the cap is still rising strongly" (note: these are new construction units).
• As the new rent controls come into effect later this year, the ifo study predicts that "a large number of these apartments to be withdrawn from the rental market when they become vacant and sold as condominiums".
• Reduced supply of rental properties means that "people looking for accommodation in Berlin will be affected"
• Rent caps introduce a bifurcated rental market: "Since July 2019, the rent prices for regulated apartments have increased more slowly than in the 13 other German cities... [but] ...rent for unregulated apartments (new buildings built since 2014) rose faster..."

"As a result [of the rent controls introduction], the divide in the Berlin real estate market is widening: new buildings, which are often found in preferred locations, are becoming increasingly expensive while prices for existing housing are developing less strongly. This  weakens the incentives to develop these buildings. ... Such a development cannot be good for an urban society and contradicts the very purpose of the law."

Ifo's preferred solution to reduce economic inefficiency of rent controls: "Instead of interfering with the ownership rights of mostly private landlords and hindering investment in housing, policy should focus on creating subsidized housing where needed.”

Full paper: “Economic Effects of the Berlin Rent Cap” (in German) by Mathias Dolls, Clemens Fuest, Carla Krolage, Florian Neumeier, and Daniel Stoehlker, in ifo Schnelldienst 3/2020: https://www.ifo.de/en/publikationen/2020/aufsatz-zeitschrift/oekonomische-effekte-des-berliner-mietendeckels

19/12/19: Irish Planning Permissions 3Q 2019: Some Goods, Some Bads

The latest Irish data for Planning Permissions approvals is a mix of some good news, some bad news and some ugly trends. Here is the summary of them for 3Q 2019:

1. Overall, planning permissions numbers for housing applications are up 4.02% y/y - this is the good news. Better news: cumulative 1Q-3Q 2019 numbers are up 7.12%  on the same period in 2018.
2. New dwelling planning permissions are up 6.01% y/y - this too is the good news. Also exciting: cumulative 9 months permissions are up 6.33% y/y.
3. Other new construction ex-dwellings permissions are up 6.29% - another bit of good news.
4. Extensions and alterations-related planning permissions are up only 1.42%. But this is offset by the cumulative 9 months gain of 7.65% y/y. Which is a nice number.
5. Bad news: private homes permissions are up only 1.13% y/y in 3Q 2019, and worse news: the same are down massive 5.57% y/y on a cumulative basis for the first 9 months of 2019.
6. Great news: apartments permissions (for units, not aggregated over schemes) are up massive 80.15% in 3Q 2019 y/y and are cumulatively up 86.81% y/y for the first nine months of 2019.
7. Average area of the houses for which new permissions are grated is up 0.82% in 3Q 2019 compared to 3Q 2018, but average area of the apartments with new permissions granted is down big time: down 14% y/y in 3Q 2019 and on average down 7.1% in the first 9 months of 2019.

So we are planning more apartments (good), not as significantly more homes (bad), but our apartments planned are getting smaller (bad). 

Now for some other bad news, or trends, rather. 

Given the demographic demand and the state of construction industry in the post-crisis period, we are continuing to under-supply new housing to the markets. Based on the assumed demand for 25,000 new homes annually, cumulative undersupply of new permissions to build residential units since 1Q 2010 currently stands at around 81,900 units and although this number is finally declining (since 4Q 2017), at the current rate of new planning permissions approvals (Q1-Q3 2019 figure), it would take almost 6.5 years to clear the backlog. That is, assuming in the mean time, there is no new recession to knock out the wind from the building and construction sector, and/or no significant inward / return migration to boost demand. Accounting for depreciation at ca 4100 units per annum (https://www.savills.com/insight-and-opinion/savills-news/273944/john-mccartney--housing-obsolescence-commonly-overestimated--and-depreciation-heavily-concentrated-in-rural-ireland) extends this horizon to 10.3 years. 

11/4/18: Sand Castles of Local Government Regulations in U.S. Property Markets

A new paper, "Sand Castles Before the Tide? Affordable Housing in Expensive Cities" by Gabriel Metcalf in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (Volume 32, Number 1—Winter 2018—Pages 59–80, https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.1.59) looks at evolution of house prices in the major urban areas of the U.S. where "the demand for housing is growing at a much faster rate than the supply. These so-called “superstars” include New York City, Boston, Washington, DC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Denver (Gyourko, Mayer, and Sinai 2013)."

These cities have "a seemingly permanent crisis of affordable housing," despite the fact that "...policymakers expend great amounts of energy trying to bring down housing costs with subsidies for affordable housing and sometimes with rent control. But these efforts are undermined by planning decisions that make housing for most people vastly more expensive than it has to be by restricting the supply of new units even in the face of growing demand."

The author provides an interesting data summary for these cities. Table 2 in the paper reports the proportion of housing units that are price-controlled or subsidised:

Of all cities areas covered, only one - Dallas - has unregulated rental market share of >50% of the total supply. Put differently, in all but one cities, subsidised and/or rent-controlled housing accounts for more than 50% of the total rental market. Only four out of 11 cities have owner-occupied housing share of the overall property market in excess of 50%.

The rest of the paper proceeds to tell us all the possible reasons as to why this capture of the property markets by price fixing and state ownership is just not enough.  Some of these reasons and arguments are not bad. Some are simply the dogmatic rehashing of the traditional Government-will-solve-everything mantra. That said, the section on the effects of poor regulation (not in quantity, but quality) of the housing markets is spot on and worth reading.

The author first tackles the issue of zoning regulations, arguing (correctly, imo) that zoning regulations both restrict supply and distort types of supply away from what is needed in addressing affordable housing shortages. The section is very brief.

The same applies to the housing approval process, that, according to the author, can result in "more uncertainty and greater risk" which result "a higher cost of capital. Longer approval processes translate into higher carrying costs for the land... Perhaps the greatest negative impact of an uncertain and hyperpoliticized entitlement process is that it functions as a barrier to entry for developers and investors into a market. The net effect is to reduce competition among developers."

"The fourth type of local regulation on housing development is financial: fees and exactions... if the rules are inherently unpredictable and changeable, it is nearly impossible to bid rationally on land, which inevitably drives up the cost of capital, and results in inefficient outcomes. ...the market price for housing has to remain high enough to cover the cost of the fees and exactions, so these function as a price floor that keeps housing more expensive than it otherwise would be."

In summary, and I find myself in agreement with author on this, "For the country as a whole, the restrictive housing policies of the cities in expensive metro areas leads to the segregation of the wealthy into zoned enclave communities; a reduced ability of lower-income people to move to areas of higher opportunity; a diversion of enormous wealth into rent-seeking behavior by landowners; and a decrease in economic productivity for the country as a whole, because labor is not able to be allocated to the most productive economic clusters".

The article provides a good summary and some good insights into potential solutions to the problems summarised above and to the phenomenon of the failure in collective action that occurs between city-level Government policies and those of the wider (commutable) metropolitan areas.

One thing that is, however, clear that housing affordability in major cities has not been meaningfully supported by the already extensive regulatory, price control and subsidy-providing systems. The idea that rent controls can offset bad regulatory and permissioning, as well as financial charging policies is simply not supported by the evidence provided for the largest and growing cities in the U.S.

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.

15/5/15: Monetary Titanic & Bubbles Troubles

Food for thought this morning - two links:

• HSBC's research warning that the monetary policies-based liquidity pyramid is shaky: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hsbc-thinks-world-economy-titanic-120044852.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=tw and that this time around, the shakes are systemic. Key point here: Central Banks are out of ammunition, while economy is not anywhere near being on solid footing.
• Meanwhile, MoneyWeek spots three bubbles (the UK-centric property bubble is not unique to London, but is present in a large number of economies, from Canada to Australia and beyond): http://moneyweek.com/three-bubbles-that-are-ready-to-pop/

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.

25/3/15: IMF on Ireland: Risk Assessment and Growth Outlook 2015-2016

In the previous post covering IMF latest research on Ireland, I looked at the IMF point of view relating to the distortions to our National Accounts and growth figures induced by the tax-optimising MNCs.

Here, let's take a look at the key Article IV conclusions.

All of the IMF assessment, disappointingly, still references Q1-Q3 2014 figures, even though more current data is now available. Overall, the IMF is happy with the onset of the recovery in Ireland and is full of praise on the positives.

It's assessment of the property markets is that "property markets are bouncing back rapidly from their lows but valuations do not yet appear stretched." This is pretty much in line with the latest data: see http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/03/25315-irish-residential-property-prices.html

The fund notes that in a boom year of 2014 for Irish commercial property transactions "the volume of turnover in Irish commercial real estate in
2014 was higher than in the mid 2000s, with 37.5 percent from offshore investors." This roughly shows a share of the sales by Nama. Chart below illustrates the trend (also highlighted in my normal Irish Economy deck):

However what the cadet above fails to recognise is that even local purchases also involve, predominantly, Nama sales and are often based on REITs and other investment vehicles purchases co-funded from abroad. My estimate is that less than a third of the total volume of transactions in 2014 was down to organic domestic investment activity and, possibly, as little as 1/10th of this was likely to feed into the pipeline of value-added activities (new build, refurbishment, upgrading) in 2015. The vast majority of the purchases transactions excluding MNCs and public sector are down to "hold-and-flip" strategies consistent with vulture funds.

Decomposing the investment picture, the IMF states that "Investment is reviving but remains low by historical standards, with residential construction recovery modest to date. Investment (excluding aircraft orders and intangibles) in the year to Q3 2014 was up almost 40 percent from two years earlier, led by a rise in machinery and equipment spending."

Unfortunately, we have no idea how much of this is down to MNCs investments and how much down to domestic economy growth. Furthermore, we have no idea how much of the domestic growth is in non-agricultural sectors (remember, milk quotas abolition is triggering significant investment boom in agri-food sector, which is fine and handy).

"But the ratio of investment to GDP, at 16 percent, is still well below its 22 percent pre-boom average, primarily reflecting low construction. While house completions rose by 33 percent y/y in 2014, they remain just under one-half of estimated household formation needs. Rising house prices are making new construction more profitable, yet high costs appear to be slowing the supply response together with developers’ depleted equity and their slow transition to
using external equity financing."

All of this is not new to the readers of my blog.

The key to IMF Article IV papers, however, is not the praise for the past, but the assessment of the risks for the future. And here they are in the context of Ireland - unwelcome by the Ministers, but noted by the Fund.

While GDP growth prospects remain positive for Ireland (chart below), "growth is projected to moderate to 3½ percent in 2015 and to gradually ease to a 2½ percent pace", as "export growth is projected to revert to about 4 percent from 2015". Now, here the IMF may be too conservative - remember our 'knowledge development box' unveiled under a heavy veil of obscurity in Budget 2015? We are likely to see continued strong MNCs-led growth in 2015 on foot of that, except this time around via services side of the economy. After all, as IMF notes: "Competitiveness is strong in the services export sector, albeit driven by industries with relatively low domestic value added." Read: the Silicon Dock.

Here are the projections by the IMF across various parts of the National Accounts:

So now onto the risks: "Risks to Ireland’s growth prospects are broadly balanced within a wide range, with key sources being:

• "Financial market volatility could be triggered by a range of factors, yet Ireland’s vulnerability appears to be contained. Financial conditions are currently exceptionally favorable for both the sovereign and banks. A reassessment of sovereign risk in Europe or geopolitical developments could result in renewed volatility and spread widening. But market developments currently suggest contagion to Ireland would be contained by [ECB policies interventions]. Yet continued easy international financial conditions could lead to vulnerabilities in the medium term. For example, if the international search for yield drove up Irish commercial property prices, risks of an eventual slump in prices and construction would increase, weakening economic activity and potentially impacting domestic banks." In other words, unwinding the excesses of QE policies, globally, is likely to contain risks for the open economy, like Ireland.
• "Euro area stagnation would impede exports. Export projections are below the average growth in the past five years of 4¾ percent, implying some upside especially given recent euro depreciation. Yet Ireland is vulnerable to stagnation of the euro area, which accounts for 40 percent of exports. Over time, international action on corporate taxation could reduce Ireland’s attractiveness for some export-oriented FDI, but the authorities see limited risks in practice given other competitive advantages and as the corporate tax rate is not affected."
• "Domestic demand could sustain its recent momentum, yet concerns remain around possible weak lending in the medium term. Consumption growth may exceed the pace projected in coming years given improving property and labor market conditions. However, domestic demand recovery could in time be hindered by a weak lending revival if Basel III capital requirements became binding owing to insufficient bank profits, or if slow NPL resolution were to limit the redeployment of capital to profitable new loans." Do note that in the table listing IMF forecasts above, credit to the private sector is unlikely to return to growth until 2016 and even then, credit growth contribution will remain sluggish into 2017.

And the full risk assessment matrix:

Oh, and then there is debt. Glorious debt.

I blogged on IMF's view of the household debt earlier here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/03/25315-imf-on-irish-household-debt-crisis.html and next will blog on Government debt risks, so stay tuned.

22/1/2015: Some recent stats on Russian economy

Couple of recent stats for Russian economy:

• Federal Budget Deficit for 2014 full year was 0.5% of GDP or RUB328 billion (ca USD 5 billion). Meanwhile, the Cabinet prepared a new Budgetary plan for dealing with the crisis which includes RUB 1.375 trillion (USD21 billion) worth of new measures. Amongst reported changes: RUB 250 billion worth of state banks recaps funds via the National Wealth Fund; RUB 86 billion of new subsidies for agriculture, industry and health, plus some regional tax breaks for SMEs.
• As reported by the Russia Insider (http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/01/22/2624) Russian banks dramatically increased bad loans provisions in 2014, up 42.2% y/y compared to 16.8% growth in 2013. Based on Sberbank estimates, if oil averaged USD40/pbl over 2015, Russian banks provisions will have to rise some USD46 billion. Meanwhile, banks profits run some 40% below 2013 levels. In 2012, Russian banks profits stood at RUB 1 trillion (USD15.3 billion), and in 2013 profits were RUB 994 billion (USD15.2 billion). In 2014 banks profits fell to RUB 589 billion (USD9 billion). Ugly numbers.
• Rental values for Moscow apartments were all over the shop in Q4 2014: Economy Class average rental rate in Rubles rose 1.1% q/q despite reports of falling demand from the migrants, while Comfort Class average rentals were down 1% q/q. Business Class rental values were up 0.71% q/q, but Elite Class rentals were down massive 11.5% q/q. So mixed signals from the rental markets overall. 

26/6/2014: You Might Need a Hubble to Spot That Bubble

In my analysis yesterday (here) I argued that Dublin residential property prices are simply showing signs of reversion to trend, not 'bubble' dynamics. Since then, numerous reports in the media produced opposite conclusions, with headlines forcibly putting forward an argument for 'bubble' formation in Dublin property markets.

Over long run, sustainable property prices appreciation should track closely inflation in the economy. So far is pretty much clear. While arbitrary, starting points for trend estimation for Dublin property should start from pre-bubble period of 1999-2001. This is also pretty clear.

So let us apply Consumer Price Index-measured inflation to Dublin residential property price indices and see where the trend is against current reading. The following chart, based on annual series 2000-2013 and May 2014 for current reading illustrates this exercise:

Here's a pesky problem for 'bubble'-maniacs out there:

1. If property prices expanded at the rate of inflation from 2000 on, current Dublin property prices index should read around 91.2.
2. If property prices expanded at the ECB policy-consistent inflation target of 2%, the index should read around 89.4
3. Current CSO index reading is 72.2

So we are somewhere 25-26% below 'sustainable' levels of house prices, if these are measured by inflation-linked price appreciation, or 24% below ECB-targeted rate of inflation.

You do need quite a powerful telescope to spot the bubble in Dublin markets from here. Which, of course, should not be read as 'there is no bubble', just as 'we can't yet tell anything about bubble being formed'.

24/10/2013: SCSI/IPD Ireland Property Index Q3 2013

SCSI/IPD Ireland Q3 2013 report is out for commercial property markets and the data is returning some interesting news.

• Irish commercial property (down 65% since the pre-crisis peak) rose 0.3% in Q3 2013 - the first time capital values were up in 23 quarters.
• Per SCSI/IPD, the drivers were: improving sentiment relating to the value of discounted properties (bottom fishing is on) and "gradually increasing occupier demand". 
• Total quarterly return on commercial real estate were at 2.6% - highest since the end of Q3 2007.
• Per release: "Demand for offices in central Dublin, from both investors and tenants, are driving returns, while recovery across the retail and industrial sectors is slower." So things are very much compressed into few sub-zones of Dublin and the 'bottom-fishing' ain't that good in the rest of the nation. 
• Office capital values rose 0.9%, while capital returns to industrial and retail property were still down at -0.5% and -0.3% respectively.
• All property annual income returns were 9.7% in September 2013, the highest measured globally by IPD and much higher than 6% in the UK.
• Annual income returns were 10.2% for offices, 12.2% for industrial properties and 8.5% for retail.
• Alas, rental values fell 0.4% overall on weak retail demand (down 1.9%), offices rents were up 0.5% nationwide and 1.0% in central Dublin. Industrial rents are up 0.3%.

Summary:

10/10/2013: CBRE Research Q3 2013: Dublin Offices Market & Irish Retail Market

Some good news from the Dublin Office Property markets and Irish Retail Property markets via CBRE Research Notes today. CBRE Research, as usual, provide very good insights and both notes, so quoting from the first note directly:

• 56 individual letting transactions signed during Q3 2013
• Almost 80% of Dublin office take-up in Q3 located in the city centre
• 68% of total lettings in the quarter smaller than 465m2 (5,000 sq. ft.)
• Prime rents expected to increase over coming months as the scarcity of prime office buildings in the city centre escalates
• Continued decline in vacancy rates in all districts
• Prime office yields have contracted by a full 150 basis points in the last 18 months
• Escalation in investment transactional activity over recent months
• Prime Dublin office yields contracted to 6% during Q3
• The city centre accounted for 79% of overall take-up in Dublin in Q3
• The Dublin 2/4 postcode accounted for almost 44% of letting activity in the city centre in the quarter
• The city centre vacancy rate was 15.7% at the end of the third quarter while the vacancy rate in Dublin 2/4 was 12.7%
• 8 office investment sales totalling € 73.65 million completed in Dublin during Q3
• Offices accounted for 30% of overall investment spend in the Irish market during the first nine months 2013

Some charts:

Less encouraging changes in the Retail Property sector. Again, via CBRE:

• An improvement in consumer trends in the first half of 2013 as the Irish economy shows some signs of improvement
• Some variation between the performance of different sectors of the retail market
• Considerable retail leasing and sales activity occurring in the property market
• Prime Zone A rents now showing signs of stabilisation following 60% fall from peak
• Little improvement in high street vacancy rates over the last six months with vacancy rates in provincial towns remaining stubbornly high
• €84 million invested in retail investment properties in the first half of 2013, accounting for 14% of investment activity in the period
• Prime retail yields have contracted since the beginning of the year in response to strong investor demand

And a couple of charts: