Showing posts with label Global Housing Watch.   Show all posts

Housing View – March 18, 2022

On cross-country:

  • A re-examination of housing bubbles: Evidence from European countries – Economic Systems


On the US:    

  • Are U.S. Housing Markets Hot, Hot, Hot? – SSRN
  • Vacant Homes Everywhere. Census surveys reveal U.S. vacancy rates, but applying the data to a home search or to social issues is complex. – New York Times
  • Wells Fargo Rejected Half Its Black Applicants in Mortgage Refinancing Boom. Fewer than half of Black applicants were approved by the biggest bank mortgage lender – Bloomberg
  • Housing Market Interventions and Residential Mobility in the San Francisco Bay Area – San Francisco Fed   
  • How Do Homeowner Experiences Vary by Race and Ethnicity? Neighborhood Differences between Hispanic and White Homebuyers – San Francisco Fed   
  • The Fed Hits the Housing-Market Wall. There are two ways policy makers could ease stagflation for consumers and industry players. Neither one is without serious challenges. – Bloomberg
  • Rent-Control Measures Are Back as Home Rents Reach New Highs. Laws on how much landlords can raise prices are debated in more than a dozen states – Wall Street Journal
  • How the War on Sprawl Caused High Housing Prices. Since the 1960s, planners have convinced many state and regional governments to limit the physical spread of urban areas. – Reason
  • The housing market’s key metric just took an ugly turn for homebuyers – Fortune
  • Introducing “Housing Finance Watch” and “Inflation Watch” – American Enterprise Institute
  • The Great Housing Inflation as a Long-Term Policy Failure. High prices of homes and rental apartments have very little to do with today’s general inflation, but reflect decades of perverse policies that hurt both renters and aspiring homeowners. – The American Prospects
  • People Deserve to Know Their Houses Are Going to Burn. The old way of insuring against fires isn’t working anymore. – The Atlantic
  • Housing Affordability Conditions Wane in January 2022 – National Association of Realtors
  • The More Density We Build, the More Valuable “Neighborhood Character” Will Be – Freddie deBoer
  • As Rents Soar, States Take Aim at Local Zoning Rules. Local officials, however, say they should decide what gets built where. – PEW


On China

  • China Home Prices Drop Faster as Slump Shows No End in Sight. New home prices fell for a sixth straight month in February. Easing measures have failed to arrest a decline in sales – Bloomberg
  • Chinese house prices slip lower despite policy loosening. Real estate sector is still struggling but there are signs of recovery in wider market – FT


On other countries:  

  • [India] Coming UBS Lists Top Real Estate Bets As It Sees Mumbai ‘Construction Boom’ Ahead – Bloomberg
  • [New Zealand] FOMO Turns to FOOP in New Zealand’s Cooling Housing Market. Credit squeeze and rising borrowing costs put brake on demand. House prices expected to fall by as much as 10% this year – Bloomberg

On cross-country:

  • A re-examination of housing bubbles: Evidence from European countries – Economic Systems

On the US:    

  • Are U.S. Housing Markets Hot, Hot, Hot? – SSRN
  • Vacant Homes Everywhere. Census surveys reveal U.S. vacancy rates, but applying the data to a home search or to social issues is complex. – New York Times
  • Wells Fargo Rejected Half Its Black Applicants in Mortgage Refinancing Boom.

Read the full article…

Posted by at 5:00 AM

Labels: Global Housing Watch

The More Density We Build, the More Valuable “Neighborhood Character” Will Be

From Freddie deBoer:

“My relationship to the YIMBY movement is a little complicated. One issue is a tendency to oversimplification. It’s understandable; the NIMBY position really is so noxious and the stakes are so high that there’s a natural desire to speak in black and white. But here’s a point that I don’t see engaged with much: while the zoning and regulatory hurdles are the major impediment to more building and lower costs, I suspect that even after major reform we won’t see immediate levels of building at the scale YIMBYs want and that we need. I suspect that market forces, inertia, and status quo bias will slow new building (and attendant badly-needed housing cost reductions) more than assumed. Tearing down regulatory barriers is essential, but that by itself won’t turn Pacific Heights into Neo-Tokyo.

I think one reason is that, as more density gets built, neighborhoods that preserve “neighborhood character” – that is, that retain the kind of low density lifestyles that characterize many expensive urban neighborhoods – will get attendantly more expensive. And that will make new building less economically attractive in pure market terms. If the luxury premium that you get from each resident is high enough, you can maintain a profit advantage compared to fitting even a great many more tenants into the same space. Rich people will pay a whole lot to keep other people out.

So if you look at the kind of walkable, low-density Brooklyn brownstone lifestyle a lot of people see as enviable, you’ve got places like Boerum Hill, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Park Slope…. These places are expensive for a variety of reasons, but certainly one of them is lower population density and the smaller-scale housing that affords. (You can see this in a neighborhood like Bedford-Stuyvesant, where there’s both very wealthy people and quite poor – and the easiest way to tell which parts are which is to note how dense the housing is.) Right now Park Slope’s large buildings are mostly found on its western edge on 4th Avenue and immediately closest to Prospect Park. In between is a sea of townhouses and other forms of low-density buildings. If we were to enable zoning reform to permit denser building in the streets that are now almost exclusively brownstones, we’d raise the housing stock and create some desperately-needed downward pressures on rents. But we would also find that the kind of bourgie people who would have paid $3 million for a house there would instead start competing for that “small town in a big city” lifestyle in those other neighborhoods, and this competition would make the existing housing stock even more expensive, thus undercutting the financial incentive to tear down low-density housing and put up high rises.

It’s also the case that, since there’s a relationship between housing density and income, the people who would be able to fight against new building most effectively would be those in low-density, even in a much-reformed regulatory environment. Rich people have multiple ways to get what they want, including in a freer housing market. Affluent people can just generate more noise and make life harder on developers even absent the most onerous zoning barriers. Dollars talk. (I had an ex-girlfriend whose family lived in a tony seaside Connecticut town; when someone was going to sell a parcel of land to put up another house on their block, the local residents simply split the cost and bought the lot so that no new building would happen.) And so you can easily imagine a future in which we pass zoning reform and yet Park Slope remains Park Slope, but where a neighborhood like Prospect Lefferts Garden – 75% Black, median income under $40,000, with a lot of single-family housing and a great deal of gentrification anxiety – sees sudden intense building and a resulting change in the demographic composition of the neighborhood. That would enflame precisely the sensitivities that we see in working-class communities of color when new building is proposed. And while I find resistance to such new building misguided, those of us who want to build more have to acknowledge that it’s an ugly thing if rich white people can keep new developments off their block but poor people of color can’t.

(Here’s an NBER paper about the costs of low-density housing such as Brooklyn brownstones, if you’re interested.)”

Continue reading here.

From Freddie deBoer:

“My relationship to the YIMBY movement is a little complicated. One issue is a tendency to oversimplification. It’s understandable; the NIMBY position really is so noxious and the stakes are so high that there’s a natural desire to speak in black and white. But here’s a point that I don’t see engaged with much: while the zoning and regulatory hurdles are the major impediment to more building and lower costs,

Read the full article…

Posted by at 7:10 PM

Labels: Global Housing Watch

Housing View – March 11, 2022

On cross-country:

  • What happened to global house prices in 2021? – Knight Frank
  • Demographia International Housing Affordability 2022 – Demographia


On the US:    

  • The impact of Treasury’s pilot program on stemming the tide of dirty money into US real estate – Brookings  
  • Early signs of Russian pullback in real estate – Axios
  • The Threat of Environmental Hazards to the Rental Stock – Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies
  • Home mortgage and insurance systems encourage development in climate-risky places, and we all pay the price – Brookings
  • U.S. Housing Wealth Skewed Even More Toward Affluent Over Past Decade. From 2010 to 2020, about 71% of increase in housing wealth was gained by high-income households, says National Association of Realtors report – Wall Street Journal
  • Stagflation Is Already Here in the Housing Market. Soaring prices and low inventory are causing headaches for homebuilders and buyers but benefiting owners — and therein lies the Fed’s predicament as it seeks to lower inflation. – Bloomberg  


On China

  • China’s Banking Regulator Welcomes Home Price Adjustments. Guo says current moves are good as long as not too volatile. Home prices have fallen for five months amid industry crisis – Bloomberg
  • Shanghai homebuyers looking to capitalise on eased credit policies have to act fast amid expectations of price rise. Eased credit has prompted potential homebuyers to actively chase flats, property agent says. Average price of secondary homes sold last month was 0.5 per cent higher than in January, and 8.5 per cent higher year on year – South China Morning Post


On other countries:  

  • [Norway] Coming of Age: Renovation Premiums in Housing Markets – SSRN
  • [Singapore] Pricey Singapore rents go through the roof even as population dips – Reuters
  • [United Kingdom] Help to Buy’s legacy: higher prices and richer builders. Now is a good time to pick over the bones of the UK government’s controversial equity loan scheme – FT
  • [United Kingdom] Goodbye Londongrad: Russian Oligarchs Put Pressure on U.K. Property Market. Russian oligarchs stormed London’s high-end property market. Now they are under pressure and so is the city’s real-estate sector. – Wall Street Journal
  • [United Kingdom] Cost versus availability of loans: which matters more for mortgagors? – Bank of England

On cross-country:

  • What happened to global house prices in 2021? – Knight Frank
  • Demographia International Housing Affordability 2022 – Demographia

On the US:    

  • The impact of Treasury’s pilot program on stemming the tide of dirty money into US real estate – Brookings  
  • Early signs of Russian pullback in real estate – Axios
  • The Threat of Environmental Hazards to the Rental Stock – Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies
  • Home mortgage and insurance systems encourage development in climate-risky places,

Read the full article…

Posted by at 5:00 AM

Labels: Global Housing Watch

Housing market risks in the wake of the pandemic

From a new paper by Deniz Igan, Emanuel Kohlscheen and Phurichai Rungcharoenkitkul:

“House prices rose strongly in advanced economies during the pandemic, breaking with typical post-recession patterns. These developments support domestic demand in the short term but carry risks to the outlook if they reverse. Rapid economic recovery, fiscal support and high saving rates amid negative real interest rates explain part of the strong housing demand. Pandemic-induced demand for space, structural supply constraints and increased demand from investors provide additional support for house prices. The monetary policy response to inflationary pressures will be a relevant factor when assessing housing market risks. Moderate increases in interest rates could help forestall speculative demand.”

From a new paper by Deniz Igan, Emanuel Kohlscheen and Phurichai Rungcharoenkitkul:

“House prices rose strongly in advanced economies during the pandemic, breaking with typical post-recession patterns. These developments support domestic demand in the short term but carry risks to the outlook if they reverse. Rapid economic recovery, fiscal support and high saving rates amid negative real interest rates explain part of the strong housing demand. Pandemic-induced demand for space, structural supply constraints and increased demand from investors provide additional support for house prices.

Read the full article…

Posted by at 1:50 PM

Labels: Global Housing Watch

Housing Market in Hong Kong

From the IMF’s latest report on Hong Kong:

“Residential house prices are on the rise again, contributing to a further increase in the already elevated level of household debt. The average debt-servicing ratio for new mortgages increased to 36.9 percent at its peak in February 2021 from 36.0 percent in December 2019, partly driven by the decline in household income. While household assets are large in aggregate—as reflected by the high household net worth-to-liabilities ratio of 11.2 times and safe assets-to-liabilities ratio of 2.9 times in 2019—the wealth distribution is skewed towards high-income households.

Given the stretched valuation, a disorderly adjustment in the property market could pose a risk to the economy. A sharp house price correction could trigger an adverse feedback loop between house prices, debt service capacity, household consumption, and growth, negatively affecting banks’ balance sheets. In addition, the FSAP analysis indicated that low-income households could be under significant financial stress when facing rising interest rates and falling income. To mitigate such risks, the authorities should continue to carefully monitor the household debt repayment capacity, particularly for low-income households.

The three-pronged approach to increasing housing affordability and containing housing market risks remains valid, but more efforts are needed to raise housing supply.

*Increasing housing supply is critical to resolve the structural supply-demand imbalance. Housing supply has increased on average since 2015 with the implementation of the government’s Long-term Housing Strategy and the Hong Kong 2030+ Strategy, but has fallen short of target by about 30 percent on average. Staff welcomes the identification of the land to provide 330,000 public housing units within the next ten years and urges the authorities to bring the actual public housing production back to the target without further delays. To this end, a comprehensive approach is urgently needed, including increasing land supply for housing production (e.g., land resumption, reclamation, and re-zoning) while expediting and streamlining the process for land identification and production (e.g., environmental, transport, and other relevant assessments). The recently announced Northern Metropolis development strategy could boost housing supply over the longer-term period.

**The macroprudential stance for property markets should be maintained to safeguard financial stability. A series of macroprudential policies that have been introduced and tightened since 2009—such as ceilings on loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, caps on debt service-to-income ratio (DSR), and stress testing of the DSR against interest rate increases—have helped contain vulnerabilities in the banking system (…). Given resilient house prices and mortgage growth, the existing residential property-related macroprudential policies should be kept unchanged for now and any changes should be data-dependent with due attention to the emerging risk of regulatory leakages. Moreover, the Council of Financial Regulators (CFR) should take the lead in strengthening the regular surveillance and data collection on lending by non-bank lenders (e.g., property developers and non-bank financial institutions), and the authorities should regularly reassess the need to expand the regulatory perimeter to mitigate the leakages in macroprudential policies.

***Stamp duties have been effective in containing speculative activity and external demand. The government has introduced three types of stamp duties to curb excess demand by both residents and nonresidents. Although they have helped curb house price increases and contain household leverage and systemic risks, the New Residential Stamp Duty (NRSD) introduced since November 2016 (…) is a residency-based capital flow management measure and a macroprudential measure (CFM/MPM) levied at a higher rate on non-residents than on first-time resident home buyers. Therefore, staff recommends phasing it out once systemic risks from the non-resident inflow dissipate.

Authorities’ Views

The authorities agreed that increasing land supply remains the key to fundamentally resolving the structural imbalance between housing demand and supply. They emphasized that various measures had been taken to boost land supply for housing production, including by accelerating land resumption and expediting and streamlining the process of land production, and such efforts were starting to bear fruits. The authorities viewed the current tight macroprudential stance for housing market as appropriate given the elevated house prices, while noting that they will continue to closely monitor the housing market and stand ready to make necessary adjustments with a view to safeguarding financial stability. They noted that mortgage lending by non-banks has been closely monitored and has declined in recent years amid the authorities’ efforts to regulate banks’ lending to non-banks and the expansion in the mortgage insurance program.”

From the IMF’s latest report on Hong Kong:

“Residential house prices are on the rise again, contributing to a further increase in the already elevated level of household debt. The average debt-servicing ratio for new mortgages increased to 36.9 percent at its peak in February 2021 from 36.0 percent in December 2019, partly driven by the decline in household income. While household assets are large in aggregate—as reflected by the high household net worth-to-liabilities ratio of 11.2 times and safe assets-to-liabilities ratio of 2.9 times in 2019—the wealth distribution is skewed towards high-income households.

Read the full article…

Posted by at 6:53 AM

Labels: Global Housing Watch

Newer Posts Home Older Posts

Subscribe to: Posts