Landmark Links November 1st – Musical Chairs

musical-chairs-fail-fall

Lead Story…. I’ve spent quite a bit of space on this blog talking about segments of the real estate market that have been struggling of late.  From high end apartments and luxury condos in NY, SF and Miami to dying shopping malls in middle America, to struggling suburban office buildings, there’s been plenty to go around.  Today, I’m going to focus on a struggling segment that we haven’t paid much attention to: super high-end retail.  It seems that landlords at the extreme high end of the retail spectrum have been pushing rents like crazy lately, and now they are paying the price as even cream-of-the-crop retail tenants can’t afford it anymore.  Bloomberg ran a story that focused primarily on NY’s iconic 5th Avenue, home of the world’s most expensive retail rents.  From Bloomberg’s Sarah Mulholland:

Landlords on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue are sitting on a record amount of open space as retailers balk at committing to expensive new leases in one of the world’s most prestigious shopping districts.

The availability rate on the famed strip, home to Saks Fifth Avenue and Tiffany & Co.’s flagship store, jumped to 15.9 percent in the third quarter, up from about 10 percent a year earlier, according to Cushman & Wakefield Inc. The rate has climbed steadily this year, surpassing the prior peak of 11.3 percent, set in the fourth quarter of 2014.

The rise of empty storefronts isn’t limited to Fifth Avenue. It’s part of a Manhattan-wide space glut as retailers — buffeted by e-commerce, tepid demand for luxury goods and a strong dollar that’s eroded tourist spending — push back against rents that have soared to records. Leasing costs have increased in tandem with property values in the past five years, outpacing gains in merchandise sales and making it impossible for retailers to run profitable stores at many locations, according to Richard Hodos, a vice chairman at brokerage CBRE Group Inc.

If you’ve read up to this point, the solution seems simple: lower rents and occupancy will rise again.  Only it’s not so simple in a world where properties trade hands relatively frequently and every buyer needs to assume that they can push rents further than the last owner in order to make the numbers work at an ever-higher basis.  This is not an issue that is in any way unique to 5th Avenue, or retail space for that matter.  It happens in commercial real estate transactions everywhere in an upward-trending market.  However,retail in particular, especially the shopping mall space is proving to be a very difficult business as eCommerce continues to gain share and department store anchors continue to go dark putting many landlords underwater. The aspect of this story that is incredibly staggering is the astronomical rental numbers. Again, from Bloomberg’s Sarah Mulholland (emphasis mine):

On the stretch of Fifth Avenue from 49th to 60th streets, which commands the world’s highest rents, landlords are asking an average of $3,213 a square foot, up from $2,075 a square foot in 2011, Cushman data show. In the tourist-heavy Times Square area, rents stand at $2,104 a square foot after tripling over a four-year period.
The brokerage’s retail availability rate takes into account vacancies as well as stores occupied by merchants that plan to leave when their leases expire. Retailers that signed leases at high prices in the past several years and are seeking a tenant to sublease their space are also included, according to Steve Soutendijk, an executive director at Cushman.
“Tenants that signed at the absolute top of the market are looking to mitigate their exposure,” he said.

At this point, you are probably assuming that the rents referenced above are a typo.  I can assure you that they are very real.  And just how did they rise so quickly? Also, how much are they overvalued? Mulholland continues (emphasis mine):

Property trades are being based on achieving ever-higher rents, and nobody ever really looks at what retailers can afford to pay,” Hodos said. “In some cases, rents need to come down 30 percent or more for rents to be at levels where retailers are able to make sense of them again.”

It gets even worse if the project is levered since signing a lease below a certain amount could lead to negative cash flow or put the loan in default if debt service coverage is inadequate.  This is a great illustration of one of the worst aspects of real estate investment: garbage in, garbage out underwriting.  You can make an investment model hit a targeted valuation if you put enough inflation into a model.  However, in the real world tenants actually have to be willing to pay and those assumptions don’t work nearly as well as they did in the model. The result is that you end up with vacancy when no tenants are willing to pay above-market rent.  If the assumptions in the proforma are garbage, then the proforma will be garbage as well.  It doesn’t matter how good your analysis tools are if you don’t use them correctly.

There’s an old saying about 5th Avenue being a safe haven real estate investment where you can’t lose money.  However, that simply isn’t true if you overpay by making such aggressive leasing assumptions that you can’t fill vacant spaces.  Trust me, you can lose plenty of money that way, especially when your entire business plan is predicated upon getting a tenant to pay you thousands of dollars a square foot.

Economy

Long in the Tooth? Yes, the current expansion cycle has been quite long but don’t assume that the next president will face a recession.

Shifting Playing Field: Workers with specialized skills, deep expertise or in-demand experience will be the big winners in the gig economy.  Everyone else?  Not so much.  See Also: While services sector booms, productivity gains remain elusive.

Residential

Choppy: US pending home sales rebounded in September after a disappointing August but inventory stayed tight.

Profiles

It Was the Best of Times. It Was the Worst of Times: Twitter as an app is absolutely indispensable.  Twitter as a business is absolute sh&t. See Also: How Instagram and Snapchat led to Twitter killing Vine.

Bet on It: Why Microsoft and Google could become the bookmakers of the future.

Seems Reasonable: A divorcing couple went to court to argue over who gets the Cubs tickets. See Also: How a pirated television station turned the Central American nation of Belize into Cubs fans.

Chart of the Day

I live in an area with extremely high rents but this is unreal

WTF

Busted: Roses are red, someone got laid, parrot outs husband for cheating with maid.

Desperate: Lonely men are increasingly turning to digital assistants like Siri for love and ‘sexually explicit’ chat.

But First, Let Me Take a Selfie: Drunk driving Texas A&M student takes naked selfie, runs into police car.

Landmark Links – A candid look at the economy, real estate, and other things sometimes related.

Visit us at Landmarkcapitaladvisors.com

Landmark Links November 1st – Musical Chairs

Landmark Links October 25th – When Will The Empire Strike Back?

darth-vader

Retraction: Before we get to today’s post, Leonardo DiCaprio’s rep announced that he doesn’t support the anti-density initiative that I spoke about on Friday, despite his name being all over it’s literature.  Maybe he is a regular Landmark Links reader and didn’t like getting called out 😉

Lead Story…. Since I began writing this blog last year, one of my main areas of focus has been how the historical relationship between primary and secondary markets has broken down in this cycle, especially in CA.  In the past, the inland production markets would heat up when prices rose along the coast.  This lead to a virtuous cycle where housing starts beget jobs which beget more employment, wage growth and ultimately more household creation and home buyers.  This cycle has been different for several reasons:

  1. Difficulty of inland builders to develop affordable homes profitably due to low FHA caps and high impact fees
  2. Growth in preference for urban living among wealthier adults
  3. Declining home ownership percentage impacts the marginal entry level buyer more than the affluent one and historically, the marginal buyer is more likely to look inland for housing.

It’s become fairly common in our industry to look to increases in FHA limits as the salvation of the secondary markets.  However, for that to occur in any substantial magnitude (all indicators point to a small increase next year),  Congress would have to revise the statutory formulas that they set back in 2008 to govern FHA limits.  As my colleague Larry Roberts wrote in OC Housing News, that is far easier said than done:

Through the lobbying efforts by the National Association of Homebuilders or the National Association of Realtors, Congress knows exactly how the conforming loan limit impacts home sales and new home development.I recently spoke with Scott Meyer and Michelle Hamecs of the NAHB. They provided me their NAHB Issues Update that detailed the FHA loan limit issue (click here for that document). It isn’t ignorance to the problems the prevents Congress from raising the limit.

The conforming loan limit demonstrates the tug-of-war between two conflicting desires of policymakers.  On one side, advocates for the housing industry and advocates for expanded housing opportunities to all Americans want to push the loan limit higher. On the other side, the more fiscally conservative lawmakers want to lower the limit to restore the prior mandate of insuring loans only for lower- and middle-income Americans. Further, they want to reduce the potential liability for the US taxpayer, who would currently cover all the losses if the market crashes again.

If the conforming loan limit were reduced, it would decrease the potential liability for taxpayers and reduce the size of the GSE operations and make it easier to someday dismantle them; however, the last time the conforming limit was dropped, Irvine, CA witnessed an 84% decline in sales volume in the price range no longer financeable with GSE loans. Ouch!

There is no doubt that increasing FHA limits would help.  There is nothing particularly healthy about having a market that is 100% reliant on government-backed loans to function but unfortunately that’s the hand that we have been dealt.  Raising FHA limits attacks the problem from the bottom of the prospective home owner pool by allowing buyers at lower price points to purchase homes with much lower down payments than what’s available using a conventional mortgage.  Today, I want to look at a different scenario that could play out in the next few years.  It’s more from the upper end of the pool where coastal renters could find themselves once again looking inland if prices continue to rise.  Today, I’m going to focus on Orange County and the Inland Empire but the demographic dynamics that I’m going to focus on could apply to many affluent coastal regions and their less-affluent inland neighbors.

On the surface, things look great in Orange County.  Economic growth is strong as is employment and home prices are now above their prior peak.  Development is humming along and occupancy levels are extremely high in commercial and multi-family projects.  In addition, OC has diversified it’s economy quite a bit as finance and tech have taken a large role as the County has become less dependent on real estate.  However, as the OC Register detailed last week, Orange County has a growing demographics problem and I think that the Inland Empire just might be the prime beneficiary.  The problem isn’t that Orange County isn’t creating jobs.  It is and we actually have the lowest unemployment rate in Southern California.  It’s that the jobs being created often don’t come with wages that would allow someone to live here.  Combine that with relatively few new housing units being built and the cost of existing units rising quicker than inflation and you have a recipe for what economists predict will be a declining population of prime workforce age population (25-64 year olds) from 2010 – 2060.  From the OC Register (emphasis mine):

“They say demographics are destiny,” Wallace Walrod, the Orange County Business Council’s Chief Economist told the conference. “It is imperative that everyone in this room understand the consequences of pending demographic shifts.”

The national trend of aging baby boomers moving into retirement, he said, is “magnified and exacerbated” in Orange County, where the over-65 population is on track to nearly double by 2060 to “a staggering 26.2 percent.”

Unlike California as a whole, every age cohort other than seniors is shrinking in Orange County, where the median age has risen from 33 to 38 since 2000.

Most worrying, the prime working-age population – 25-to 64-year-olds – is expected to dip by 1 percent by 2060, even as overall population grows by 15 percent.

By contrast, working-age groups in Riverside and San Bernardino counties are on track to grow by 61 percent and 47 percent, respectively.

“We are losing not only our 25 to 34 year-old workforce – millennials – but also losing K-12 and the college-age cohort as well,” Walrod said.

The trend, he warned, “could devastate O.C.’s pool of workers, creating talent gaps as large swaths of the workforce retires, leaving open positions that will likely go unfilled.”

The Register went of to identify the the obvious culprit: housing.  I frequently hear friends, neighbors and co-workers and neighbors who live in Orange County complain that the area is being over-developed.  The stark reality of simple math shows that view couldn’t be more wrong.  Again, from The OC Register (emphasis mine):

A severe housing shortage has turned Orange County into one of the most expensive markets in the nation, with median home prices exceeding $650,000 and average monthly rents at about $1,900. Higher-density developments that could alleviate the shortfall are often opposed by current homeowners.

Rising values are “good news for current homeowners, but bad news for those looking to afford to relocate to O.C. or to buy a house and stay here, especially millennials,” Walrod said.

As a result, he added, “domestic outmigration has been accelerating.”

The report projects that “new job creation will significantly outpace projected new housing units over the next two and half decades, resulting in a housing shortfall that will grow from a current reading of 50,000-62,000 units to a staggering 100,000 units by 2040.

Many workers are being forced into neighboring counties to find more affordable housing, increasing their commute and complicating their work-life balance.”

……

According to the report, it takes an hourly wage of $32.15 to afford a two-bedroom apartment in Orange County, putting it out of reach for minimum-wage workers in the county’s fast-growing service sector, given the current California wage floor of $10 an hour.

The story goes into much more detail about a developing skill gap and low wage job boom.  However, I want to keep the focus on housing for this post.  Note the above projections about working age populations in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties (growth of 61% and 47% respectively from today until 2060).  Those are massive numbers that will create a strong demand for housing and not all of it will be entry level.  If you take the median income required to buy and rent a median-priced home in Orange County today, it is around $100k (assuming you can put down 20%) and $70k, respectively, so there are a lot of people with well-paying jobs that fall below that amount.  Given the fierce opposition to density in the OC, it is likely that those numbers will only increase.  Also, keep in mind that the averages above are for the entire county.  The most desirable areas with the best school districts can easily be double those amounts which is incredible when you consider that median income to afford an apartment in the neighboring IE is around $55k.  At some point, something has to give.  My guess is that it’s a move towards more relatively affordable housing markets, in this case the Inland Empire.

I want to make an important caveat about what I wrote above: I haven’t a clue as to when this change will actually take place and more affluent workers will start to look inland to buy or rent.  However, one thing that I’ve learned witnessing our current market is that things change incredibly quickly once they hit a critical mass.  Just a few short years ago we were subject to an endless barrage of “renting is superior to buying” articles in the mainstream and business press.  Just this week, Bloomberg ran a piece that argued that it’s almost always better to buy.  Such an article would have never seen the light of day in 2011.  Both types of articles are virtually assured to be wrong since they argue in absolutes. In reality it’s sometimes better to buy and sometimes better to rent but that level of nuance doesn’t lead to many page views.

My comment about how quickly things change goes for regional and local trends as well.  For example, 15 years ago, pretty much no one with a college education wanted to live anywhere near downtown LA.  Within the past 10 years that has changed rapidly and an area which was once in the grips of urban decay has become one of the most desirable locations for young, affluent home owners and renters in the US.  Some of the same conditions that created the LA gentrification/urban renewal boom have caused the Inland Empire to lag: delayed household formation by Millennials, preference for urbanization among high earners and a downward trend in the percentage of Americans who own a home.  However, I have serious doubts that these are permanent trends and there are other factors at play already that could begin to create more inland demand:

  1. Addition of urban elements and amenities to existing CBD and downtown regions.  This is already happening in downtown Riverside as more density and foodie oriented retail are on their way.  There are other urban areas out in the IE that could experience the same thing over time, downtown San Bernardino for example.  It’s probably difficult to imagine right now but that’s ok.  Downtown LA as it currently exists was didn’t seem feasible back in 2001 either and I doubt that many of us foresaw luxury condos and apartments going up next to Skid Row.
  2. Self driving cars could help to ease commute stress in markets without mass transit infrastructure.  The technology is advancing rapidly and the Inland Empire will arguably be the region that will benefit the most in the US.
  3. Bank lenders are starting to compete with the FHA for low down-payment loans to entry level buyers.  Bank of America has been so successful with their 3% down program that they are doubling it.  These lending programs are still tiny by comparison but it wasn’t long ago that they didn’t exist at all.
  4. Millennials are getting older.  Many of the oldest Millennials are now entering their mid to late 30s which are the prime household creation years.  Once people start families, studies show that they are more likely to favor the stability of owning over the mobility of renting and the family-friendly single family home over an apartment.

The Inland Empire is down but I wouldn’t count it out over the long term.  The current trends that have hurt the housing market there aren’t likely to last forever and the region is adjacent to too many incredibly expensive areas to not experience some spillover as even relatively high earning families eventually get priced out of the coastal regions. Conventional wisdom is that only an increase in the FHA loan limit can revitalize the IE housing market.  In the short term, that may very well be the case but a sustainable recovery just might come from higher earners moving into the region.

Economy

The Walking Dead: How bankrupt oil companies that are continuing to pump could keep a lid on oil prices.

Stay In: It’s getting more expensive to eat out even as grocery prices are falling.

Commercial

The Spigot: Pension funds have been steadily increasing commercial real estate allocations for the past few years and that isn’t likely to change in 2017 despite signs of a maturing market.  See Also: REITS have become a more attractive target for activist investors.

High Times: A San Diego based medical marijuana landlord just filed for an IPO.

Residential

Further Afield: High prices and low yields near the coast have investors looking for rental homes in cheaper locations through management and investment services like Home Union, Investability and Roofstock.  However, a lack of local knowledge can lead to out of area investors paying the dumb tax by thinking that they are getting a good deal when they aren’t.

Profiles

Pull the Lever: How smart phones and app developers create digital addiction by mimicking slot machines.

Paradise: The Cubs paved the way for the Dodgers to come to LA by hosting their spring training on Catalina Island. See Also: For the Cubs oldest fans, this year could be their last chance. And: There are people trying to get 6 figure ticket prices for a single seat at World Series games at Wrigley Field.

Chart of the Day

WTF

Hard at Work: Meet the TV weatherman who got bored with his job after 23 years and decided to become a porn star.

Not a Detail Person: Russian oligarch has giant hideous boat built at a German port on the Baltic Sea. Ship draws too much to get out of the straits at the entrance to the Baltic. Epic FAIL ensues.

Lawsuit of the Year Nominee: A woman is suing KFC for $20MM because she felt that her bucket of chicken wasn’t full enough.

Landmark Links – A candid look at the economy, real estate, and other things sometimes related.

Visit us at Landmarkcapitaladvisors.com

Landmark Links October 25th – When Will The Empire Strike Back?

Landmark Links October 21 – Dense Hypocrisy

wolf_wall_street3

Lead Story… There is little that I enjoy more than reading (or writing) about the hypocrisy of self-important celebrities.  However, one of my primary rules for writing this blog is to avoid politics – unless it’s land use politics (or water politics).  As such, I haven’t had the opportunity to write much about celebrity hypocrisy, despite frequent gnawing temptation to do so.  Today’s blog will be different.

At this point in his career, Leonardo DiCaprio is almost as well known for his environmental activism as he is for his acting, or, for that matter the number of supermodels that he’s slept with.  This is despite the fact that his anti-fossil fuel stance is frequently juxtaposed against his high-rolling lifestyle of flying around the world on carbon-spewing private jets and spending his vacations on yachts rented or borrowed from oil sheikhs, all of which is evidenced by his massive carbon footprint.    However, the above examples may not even be his most egregious examples of hypocrisy since they only deal with his individual actions and lifestyle.  His views on land use politics are far more disturbing and far more destructive from an environmental prospective.

So, now we come to the land use part of this story.  It’s not a controversial notion that the best thing that a city can do to cut down on pollution is build more density in it’s core as higher density in urban centers leads to less automobile use, which leads to less carbon emissions.  If residents are located closer together, there is less need to transport people and goods over further distances.  Therefore energy use is reduced, as well as water usage for that matter since higher density typically means less large lawns to water.  This is roughly as objectionable as someone making an argument that water is wet or that orange juice tastes like oranges.  So, imagine my surprise (end sarcasm here) when I recently read a story on Curbed LA about how self-styled environmental crusader Leonard DiCaprio (among other celebrity “activists”) had signed onto an anti-development campaign known as the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative demanding the following:  From Curbed LA  (emphasis mine):

(1) Direct officials to halt amendment of the City’s General Plan in small bits and pieces for individual real estate developer projects, and

(2) Require the City Planning Commission to systematically review and update the City’s community plans and make all zoning code provisions and projects consistent with the City’s General Plan, and

(3) Place City employees directly in charge of preparation of environmental review of major development projects, and

(4) For a limited time, impose a construction moratorium for projects approved by the City that increased some types of density until officials can complete review and update of community plans or 24 months, whichever occurs first.

This list of demands was presented to Mayor Eric Garcetti.  The group claims that they have enough signatures to get their measure on the ballot should Garcetti not submit to their demands.  This is NIMBYism, plain and simple.  There is just no other way to describe it  From Curbed LA (emphasis mine):

So, quite literally, the single best thing that a city can do for the planet is locate destinations—houses, jobs, grocery stores, schools—closer together so its residents expend less time, less money, and fewer fossil fuels traveling among them.

That’s how LA needs to think about density—as a long-term solution for climate change that will also deliver short-term social and economic benefits.

The problem with anti-density campaigns is that their boosters aren’t thinking about our city in a way that looks beyond what they see on their own block today.

Santa Monica’s anti-density measure, LV, is the most troubling, as it would require a citywide vote to approve any new structure over 32 feet. This would make it politically (and economically) difficult to erect buildings more than two stories tall in a prohibitively expensive city that already has limited room to grow, pushing workers farther and farther away from their jobs.

Again, as stated previously, the fact that increasing density in urban cores is good for the environment is not particularly controversial, nor is it an issue opposed by those on either the right or the left….until it happens near when they live.  In this case, it’s a matter of wealthy hypocrites who claim to be environmentalists trying to stop development because it happens to inconvenience their lifestyle a bit, despite the fact that the development would have a substantial positive impact on the environment that they claim to care so much about.  Again, from Curbed LA (emphasis mine):

Restricting building height and planning for cars goes against everything that environmental leaders and sustainability experts have been saying for decades: If you’re erecting a multi-use structure in a dense, transit-accessible neighborhood with centralized freight delivery systems, the environmental impact of that structure is lessened significantly over time.

Building a two-story building surrounded by a city-mandated parking lot on an extra wide street is not the worst thing you could do for the planet. The worst thing you could do for the planet is codify this kind of development into the land use and planning policies of your city to make building anything else impossible.

That’s why many cities and states are incentivizing dense, transit-accessible development as part of a larger climate-friendly mandate to not only decrease emissions, but also improve public health, clean the air, and slash energy costs.

My broader point here is that you can’t have it both ways.  This isn’t an issue where there is a credible case that increasing density in urban cores isn’t better for the environment than doing the opposite: incentivizing sprawl by making it impossible to build in urban areas.  You can’t be an environmental advocate only when it suits your personal interests and expect not to get called out on your hypocrisy, especially when you stake out as hard-line of a position as DiCaprio has.

Economy

Watching the Horizon: According to Bloomberg, odds are that the next financial crisis will come from depressed lenders, shadow banks or China.

Conscientious Uncoupling: How a massive surge in divorce rates in couples over 50 years old is forcing people to work longer and putting retirements at risk.

Commercial

Rise of the Machines: Industrial robots are driving some major changes in both warehouse design and workforce composition.

Residential

History Lesson: The New York Times published a fairly balanced history of the story behind the prop 13 tax revolt and it’s consequences.

Bad Rap: Luxury condos and apartments get a bad rap when it comes to the increasing cost of housing when restrictive zoning is more often the real culprit.

The Missing Middle: By continuing to focus primarily on housing prices in San Francisco and NY, the media is missing a bigger story – rentals are becoming un-affordable nation-wide for middle class families.

Profiles

What’s the Story?  HGTV has achieved something incredible: a bunch of hit shows with no serialized narrative drama that is the hallmark of the modern successful series.

Video Of the Day: Meet Rox Zee, the Boise State football team’s kickoff tee fetching Labrador Retriever.  In related news, I think that I just became a Boise State fan.

Troll So Hard: Twitter’s infamous army of anonymous trolls played a roll in Salesforce passing on offering to acquire the troubled social media platform.

Farm to Cart: Target is experimenting with so-called vertical farms where produce is grown in-store.

Chart of the Day

WTF

Political Metaphor: A Hillary Clinton tour bus was busted dumping human waste down a storm drain in an Atlanta suburb, resulting in a hazmat team getting dispatched to the site.  If you’ve ever seen National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, you are aware that this can end really, really terribly.  On a personal note, I can’t wait for this election season to end.

Revealing Protest: Porn actors (I never understood why they are all called stars) are picketing on the streets in Hollywood to protest a ballot proposition which would impose mandatory condom use for any adult video filmed in the state.  Los Angeles passed a similar law in 2012 that decimated the adult industry, causing permits to plunge from 480 in the year it was passed to just 25 last year.

Pack a Day: Meet Azalea, the chain smoking chimp who has become the star of North Korea’s new national zoo in Pyongyang.

Landmark Links – A candid look at the economy, real estate, and other things sometimes related.

Visit us at Landmarkcapitaladvisors.com

Landmark Links October 21 – Dense Hypocrisy

Landmark Links October 18th – On Point

target

Lead Story…. A bit short on time this week so I’m going to outsource the lead story.  Joe Bosquin of Builder Magazine wrote a wonderful summary about how California priced itself out of the market for entry-level home buyers titled The Unintended Consequences of Law. Spoiler: it has everything to do with Prop 13 and CEQA.  Bosquin’s piece as good as an explanation for our absurd housing prices in the Golden State as you will find.  Yours truly gets a bit more than a quick mention and they included an article  that I had written for Builder (and Landmark Links) back in May about why our impact fees are so high compared to the rest of the country.  By the way, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office published a piece in September in which they confirmed my thesis about the relationship between Prop 13 and impact fees.

Here’s an excerpt from Builder but you should really check out the entire article.  It’s a quick and easy read even if you aren’t a housing and development nerd:

According to a widely referenced 2015 report from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the Legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal and policy analysis arm, since 1980, California has built half of the housing units it needed—about 100,000 per year—to keep up with demand. And that’s just in aggregate. In high-demand locales like the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles, the housing deficit is even greater. “Most of California’s coastal counties needed to build three times as much (or more) housing as they did,” the report claims.

Stated differently, during the past 36 years, California did not build the additional 3.6 million homes that it needed to keep its skyrocketing prices in check. To put that number in perspective, it would take the collective efforts of every home builder in the country, building nonstop at 2016’s projected pace of 1.26 million housing starts, three years to put a dent in the state’s problem.

The report concludes that NIMBYism, local communities’ lack of financial incentives to approve more housing, and anti-growth proponents who go to daunting lengths to block development have contributed to the problem, as well as more inveterate challenges such as a scarcity of suitable land along the coast and an ever-increasing population.

The LAO report found that the average cost of homes in California is two-and-a-half times higher than the rest of the country, and rents are 50% higher. It also points to evidence that high housing costs were making it difficult for companies to recruit employees, even in Silicon Valley, and threatened the state’s jobs base. Other reports that came out in its wake highlighted a net migration of 625,000 people out of the state from 2007 to 2014, primarily among lower income earners, attributed to housing costs.

All of which leads to the question, how did California get to a place where it tacks $75,000 onto the cost of a new home in the midst of a housing crisis that’s eroding its jobs base and pushing the country’s most populous state into an unwinnable war of the haves and have nots?

First off, major thanks to Joe Bosquin for writing this.  Also, a big shout out to Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association for calling the rest of us who cited facts in the article “morons” after he apparently couldn’t counter the points that we had made on factual grounds.  I’ll wear that one as a badge of honor.

Economy

Glass Half Empty: The downside of our technology revolution is a lack of job creation.

Warming Up: Wage growth is now at the highest level that it’s been in a year but the stock market might not be thrilled.

Visual Representation: 27 fascinating charts that will change how you think about the American economy.

Useless: The WSJ surveyed economists and found that 59% believe that there will be a recession in the next 4 years.  For those not familiar with this sort of methodology, 4 years is an incredibly long horizon in which to forecast such things.  The incredibly-accurate Bill McBride thinks that we are in the clear for 2017 and likely 2018 as well (although he cautions that even 2 years out is too far to accurately forecast).

Commercial

Bucking the Trend: While most benchmarks have remained low this year, LIBOR has climbed substantially mostly due to new money-market rules which could lead to an uptick in financing costs for commercial real estate.

Supply Exceeds Demand: Rents in Manhattan are falling as listings surge 35%.

Residential

Selection Bias: All of the Urban revival stories that you read these days are really about the amount of money flowing into urban centers than the number of people.

Viva Mexico: A condo boom in Tijuana, coupled with easier border crossing rules for regular commuters could help ease a housing shortage in San Diego….but is not without it’s risks to American buyers.

The First Step: The Federal Reserve has now acknowledged that we have a housing affordability crisis.  Admitting that you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

Profiles

Prime Time: Nearly 60% of US households and 75% of those that make over $112k per year are now Amazon Prime members.  Let. That. Sink. In.

Screen Shot 2016 10 14 at 11.00.26 AM

Pay For Play: For-profit college Devry University has finally agreed to stop using the bullshit claim that 90% of it’s graduates seeking employment found jobs in their field within 6-months of graduation.  The action came as part of a settlement with the Department of Education over misleading advertising.  That claim would be impressive (and improbable) if it was made by Harvard, let alone a lowly for-profit school that may or may not be a diploma mill depending on who you ask.

Foot in the Door: How Uber plans to conquer the suburbs by partnering with cities to ease parking congestion.

But First, Let Me Take a Selfie: Companies are starting to use facial-recognition apps that utilize smartphone snapshots to verify identity.

Chart of the Day

Things that we want are getting cheaper.  Things that we need are getting more expensive.

WTF

Hero: Regular readers know that I’m a sucker for a great headline.  Man ‘High on LSD’ Saves Dog From Imaginary House Fire is among the best that I’ve seen.

The Softer Side: That Russia is a bizarre place is pretty much self evident.  This new Vladamir Putin calendar featuring the Russian leader cuddling with kittens won’t do anything the change that perception.

Parent of the Year: A Pennsylvania woman has been charged with child endangerment after refusing to feed her 11-month old son anything other than fruit and nuts.  I’ve said it before and will say it again: veganism is a mental disorder.

Landmark Links – A candid look at the economy, real estate, and other things sometimes related.

Visit us at Landmarkcapitaladvisors.com

Landmark Links October 18th – On Point

Landmark Links September 30th – Careful What You Ask For

crowds

Lead Story… Anyone who has ever dealt with addiction will tell you that the first step towards recovery is admitting that a problem exists as opposed to sticking ones head in the sand an denying it’s presence.  Ever since the end of the Great Recession, we’ve faced a different sort of housing crisis: one defined by an inadequate amount of residential development taking place in our most productive cities.  This has led to skyrocketing rents and home prices and resulted in an affordability crisis.  The primary reason, as outlined here numerous times is that restrictive zoning and a grueling discretionary approval process in our most productive cities make it incredibly hard to develop more density which is desperately needed to accommodate an ever-growing population.  When demand exceeds supply prices go up.  Despite the contentions of some anti-growth city dwellers, housing is not immune to the basic laws of economics.

Nearly all land use politics is local in nature and it’s incredibly difficult amend restrictive zoning.  The reason is simple: existing owners benefit from scarcity of new housing units since it leads to increased values.  They also tend to prefer less traffic and crowding. Existing owners will always be a more powerful and well-organized constituency than aspiring owners or renters which is why NIMBY’s wield so much power and influence over local government.

Over the past few years, there has been a growing consensus from economists on both the left and right that restrictive zoning and so-called slow growth development restrictions are a leading cause of income inequality and cause a drag on economic growth.  State and even the Federal Government are finally taking notice and acknowledging that this is a big problem that cities aren’t likely to solve on their own because they don’t have the stomach to push back against the NIMBYs.  It’s very rare that governors opine on local land use decisions.  However, CA Governor Jerry Brown did just that earlier this year when he attempted to make it easier to build apartments and condos – and was ultimately unsuccessful.  As rare as it is for governors to get involved in local land use issues, it’s pretty much unprecedented for a president to do it.  However, earlier this week, President Obama did just that.  From Politico (emphasis mine):

The Obama administration Monday is calling on cities and counties to rethink their zoning laws, saying that antiquated rules on construction, housing and land use are contributing to high rents and income inequality, and dragging down the U.S. economy as a whole.

City zoning battles usually are fought block by block, and the president’s involvement will create friction, particularly among environmental groups and the not-in-my-backyard crowd. But the White House jawboning is welcome news to many others, including mayors and builders increasingly foiled by community opposition to development.

The White House published a “toolkit” of economic evidence and policy fixes to help local political leaders fight back against the NIMBYs that tend to hold sway over municipal zoning meetings.

“In more and more regions across the country, local and neighborhood leaders have said yes in our backyard,” the paper states. “We need to break down the rules that stand in the way of building new housing.”

The prescriptions call for more density, speedier permitting and fewer restrictions on accessory dwelling units such as basement and garage apartments. The plan rejects some of the arguments made by environmentalists, labor unions and other liberal constituencies that have stood in the way of development and endorses changes long sought by builders and the business community.

“When unnecessary barriers restrict the supply of housing and costs increase, then workers, particularly lower-income workers who would benefit the most, are less able to move to high-productivity cities,” said Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. “All told, this means slower economic growth.”

Ultimately, there really isn’t much that the Federal Government can do directly to tackle this issue.  However, the administration’s 2017 budget request includes $300 million in grants to help mayors update zoning rules, and the Department of Transportation has begun considering plans for housing growth and affordability before approving funding for some transit projects.  Both of those measures are amount to little more than a drop in the bucket but it’s now clear that both State and Federal Governments are increasingly less reluctant to tackle this issue.

The aspect of this that I find most interesting is that we now have the president and the governor of the nation’s most populous state, both of whom are Democrats taking a public position on an issue that opposes strong Democratic constituencies.  Most every city in the US with a housing affordability problem has a strong Democratic majority – the only one that I was able to find with a Republican majority was San Diego and only by a very slim margin.  Aside from the NIMBY’s, development has frequently been opposed by constituencies that lean hard left: primarily environmentalists and labor unions – who want everything built with expensive union labor.  I’m highly skeptical that anything will actually come from this effort as it’s incredibly difficult and not exactly a desirable outcome for the State or Federal Government to start influencing local land use politics since it’s an area where one size typically does not fit all.  However, it’s a sign of just how serious this problem has become when politicians such as Governor Brown and President Obama both were compelled to take positions that run counter to some of their core constituencies.

Economy

Getting Out: Foreign central banks are selling US Treasuries at an unprecedented pace.

One Size Doesn’t Fit All:  Median income in Los Angeles County is $45,000.  However, new research by economist Ross DeVol of the Milken Institute found that a resident would need to make $145,000 in order to spend 30 percent of earned after-tax income on rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles County.  There is no one size fits all solution when it comes to determining what constitutes middle income in a country with increasingly stratified regional cost of living.

Giving Away the Farm: Stanford will give you $160k towards your MBA…if you agree to work in the Midwest for a couple of years after graduating.

Commercial

Filling the Gap: Private equity funds offering bridge and mezzanine financing are increasing taking share in the commercial real estate industry as traditional lending sources dry up.

Follow Up: As a follow up to a story that we posted a few weeks ago, it’s really difficult to sell an office building that looks like a picnic basket.  Newark Ohio’s famous Longaberger Basket Building is heading to foreclosure due to a large delinquent property tax bill. (h/t Tom Farrell)

Residential

Widening Gap: Bay area wages are soaring, having risen by approximately 30 percent in the past five years.  However, they still can’t keep pace with Bay Area home prices which are up 87% over that same time period.  But See: Some of America’s hottest housing markets are showing signs of cooling off and incomes are now rising quicker than home prices.

Back to the Stone Age: Communal living is a hot new trend with young people in urban areas.  However, it’s really not new at all and is actually a repeat of the way that people lived during the middle ages.

Double Wide: As the US faces a building home affordability crisis, it would make sense that mobile home sales would be taking off.  However, mobile home deliveries are actually soft and the reasons likely have a lot to do with expensive financing and social stigma.  Looks like a market segment desperately in need of a re-brand.

Profiles

Scam: Ever wonder why get rich quick schemes cause otherwise intelligent people to let their guard down?  It’s all in the messaging.  As an aside, if you ever come across someone touting their IQ in marketing material or any sort (including their CV), RUN. (h/t Stone James)

GOAT: Vin Scully, the voice of the LA Dodgers (and arguably all of baseball) for the past 67 years is retiring this weekend at the age of 89.  Los Angeles fans were incredibly fortunate to have both Vin and the late Chick Hearn of Lakers broadcast fame on the radio for decades (if you want to appreciate just how great Scully is, have a listen to some of the dreck that they put on the radio in NY).  This oral history of Scully’s career from ESPN is a great read.

Deflated: The collectible car market is headed in reverse and is well off of it’s highs from just a few years ago.

Christmas Idea: If any of you feel the need to buy your favorite blogger a Christmas present, this motorized, ride-able suitcase called the Modobag is near the top of my list.

Chart of the Day

This is not cyclical

WTF

Repent, the End is Near: Toilet frogs are becoming a problem in parts of Florida.  You read that correctly, frogs are coming up through the plumbing and showing up in toilets in Florida homes.  I think there is a biblical plague reference in there somewhere….

He Who Smelt It…: A new study finds that couples who fart in front of each other have healthier relationships and stay together longer.  I’ve been telling this to Mrs. Links for years.  She’s not impressed.

Product Review of the Week: Sugarless Haribo Gummy Bears sound delicious and healthy too:

“OMG. Everything previously written is true. It’s all true. Don’t eat more than 15 in a sitting unless you are trying to power wash your intestines.”

Landmark Links – A candid look at the economy, real estate, and other things sometimes related.

Visit us at Landmarkcapitaladvisors.com

Landmark Links September 30th – Careful What You Ask For

Landmark Links September 23rd – What’s the Point?

13102550_1187025494654529_535629253_n

Lead Story… Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker once said that the only useful modern financial innovation was the ATM.  While that’s a rather harsh assessment, there is a bit of truth to it.  Too often, financial products ranging from subprime loans, to derivatives to leveraged ETFs are created more as profit and marketing opportunities for those selling them than they are to fill an actual need of the people that they are being sold to.  That being said, I’m still somewhat fascinated by the FinTech industry because there are segments of the market that are not covered by traditional sources where FinTech companies can provide real value to consumers.  There have been several such products from online mortgage lenders to crowd funding platforms for real estate deals that fill a need.  I’m especially interested when a FinTech startup is aimed at our beleaguered national housing market.  Last week, top tier Venture Capital investor Andreessen Horowitz announced a new venture called Point which was created to invest in a portion of the equity in a home in exchange for a portion of the return when you sell or refinance.  Point lowers a homeowner’s monthly payment because you don’t pay current on Point’s equity investment and that all of their profit is realized upon sale or refinance of the home. Although this reduces a homeowner’s current pay, it could cost a lot more in the long term depending on whether your house appreciates and by how much.  When Point was announced via press release, the financial blogosphere when into a bit of a tizzy which was somewhat predictable given that: 1) The concept of offloading equity in a home, typically a family’s largest asset, has been around for some time but this seems to be the first time someone has attempted to do it in scale; and 2) Andreessen Horowitz is known for making smart investments – so people naturally assume that their involvement validates Point’s business plan.  I wanted to hold off on offering my opinion until I had time to do a bit of reading and research on the product.  There is still  a lot of information that hasn’t been released on how the product works but I’ve been able to piece together enough to get a decent ideal.

First off, let’s explain how the product works.  The best way to do that is probably the example from their own website:

 

Check if you qualify

Enter your address and answer a few questions. The process is free and takes less than 5 minutes.

5 minutes

  • You provide us with basic information about your home and your household finances.
  • To be eligible for Point, you’ll need to retain at least 20% of the equity in your home after Point’s investment.
  • We can instantly give you pre-approval or denial based on the information you provide.

Point Makes you an offer

Point makes a provisional offer to purchase a fraction of your home. We will provide you with an offer based on the value of your home today.

1-3 days

  • If pre-approved, we provide a provisional offer based on the data you provide.
  • The offer is typically for between 5% and 10% of your home’s current value.
  • We’ll ask you to complete a full application and provide documentation for our underwriting team.
  • If possible, we will improve on our pre-approval offer.

Schedule an in-person home visit

Pick a time for a licensed appraiser to visit you. We want to ensure the price is correct by checking the place out — no cleaning necessary 🙂

5-8 days

  • We will schedule time for a home valuation visit.
  • You will be charged for the cost of the appraisal, which is typically between $500 – $700.
  • The appraiser will visit and inspect your home.
  • We will share the appraiser’s report with you once it’s complete. The appraiser’s value is an important component of the final offer.

Point pays you

We usually send the money within 4 business days of closing.

3-5 days

  • We finalize the offer following the appraisal and receipt of all supporting application documents.
  • You will meet with a notary to sign the Point Homeowner Agreement.
  • Point files a Deed of Trust and Memorandum of Option on your property in your county recorder’s office.
  • Once the filings have been confirmed, we transfer the offer funds (less Point’s processing fee of 3% and the escrow fee) electronically to your bank account.

Sell the home or buy back from Point when the time is right for you

Point is paid when you i) sell your home, or ii) at the end of the term, or iii) during the term, when you choose to buy back. Regardless of the timing, there’s no early buyback penalty.

1 to 10 years

  • If you sell your home within the term then Point is automatically paid from escrow.
  • If you don’t sell, you can buy back Point’s stake at any time during the term at the then current appraised property value.
  • Point is paid a fraction of the home’s value. If the home has declined significantly in value, Point may be due less than its original investment.
 Sounds simple enough but as usual, the devil is in the details.  A few caveats:
  1. Point collects a processing fee of 3% upfront in addition to appraisal and escrow fees
  2. You need at least 20% equity in your home to qualify
  3. You are guaranteeing repayment in 10 years
  4. Point is in a preferred position, meaning that they get paid first in the event that your home loses value
  5. When Point first went live last week, they gave an example of their pricing on their website (they have since taken it down for some reason).  In this example, Point put up 10% of the value of the home and received 20% of the appreciation (net of any improvements done by the home buyer in return.
One of the primary issue holding back the market is a lack of capacity for down payments by first time home buyers.  Low interest rates may be great for monthly payment affordability but they do nothing when it comes to a buyer’s ability to save a 20% down payment for a conforming loan.  There is a real need for investors in this space and some platforms have tried to tackle it.  For example, FirstRex which was profiled by Bloomberg back in 2013 will put down up to 50% of a homebuyer’s downpayment in exchange for a portion of the profit.  However, I am not aware of there being a substantial need for people who already have a large amount of equity in their homes to be able to extract that equity, especially when cheap HELOCs or reverse mortgages ( for seniors) are readily available.  Both HELOCs and reverse mortgages allow an owner to extract their equity WITHOUT giving up 20% of the upside in their home.  In order to illustrate this I ran a scenario outlined in Point’s press release.  For the sake of simplicity, I didn’t include property taxes, insurance or maintenance as these would be the same with or without Point.  I also didn’t include any loan fees in an effort to keep things simple.  This analysis has 2 scenarios:
Scenario 1: Borrower buys a home for $500k.  Borrower takes out a $400k with a down payment of $100k.  The mortgage has a 4% coupon.
Scenario 2: Borrower sells $50k in equity (10% of the total value of the home to Point, reducing the loan size to $350k, again with a 4% coupon.  Under this scenario, Point gets 20% of the home price appreciation.
  fullsizerender
As you can see, it’s substantially less expensive to use a traditional mortgage if you experience any home price inflation – and Point’s website and press release both imply that it will be targeting higher priced markets that will likely experience more inflation.  If a borrower lives in a market that experiences home price inflation of less than 2%, Point makes some sense.  Above that, it doesn’t appear to.
So what’s the Point (Pun fully intended)?  IMO, this would be a great investment program if it were structured as some form of down payment assistance (like the FirstRex example above) – I’m even willing to bet that they could get more aggressive splits if it were designed to fill that substantial need in the market.  However, as currently offered, it’s an expensive preferred position that sits in front of a substantial amount of equity (again, assuming that there is any home price inflation).  I’m just not sure that there is much of a need for a product that allows people with a lot of equity to extract it from their homes when HELOCs are available, cheap and flexible and reverse mortgages are an option for seniors.  Borrowers that need something like this (and would be willing to pay for it) to defray their down payment can’t qualify and those who would qualify have better options if they want to extract equity from their homes or finance a purchase.  As such, I just can’t see how this is something that will be very scalable in it’s current form.

Economy

Surprise, Surprise: The Fed chose not to raise rates at their meeting this week but signaled that 2016 rate increases are still likely.  For those keeping track at home, they did exactly the same thing that they’ve done at pretty much ever meeting this year.

You Want Cream or Sugar with That? Yes, there is a Millennial underemployment crisis but it only extends to those with liberal arts degrees.

Commercial

Bottom of the Barrel: The ongoing dumpster fire that is K-Mart announced that it’s closing 64 stores and laying off thousands of employees.  I honestly had no idea that there were 64 K-Marts still open to begin with.

Going Long: Blackstone jumped back into the logistics business after selling IndCor Properties in 2015 by purchasing a $1.5 billion mostly-west-coast portfolio from Irvine-based LBA.  See Also: How Amazon is eating the department store, one department at a time.

Residential

Flipper’s Back: Home flipping continues to make a comeback and is now at it’s highest level since 2010.  A lot of the activity has been taking place in secondary markets like Fresno which could be a good sign that things are getting better.

Soaring: According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, urban rents in US cities are rising quicker than they have in any time in recorded history.

Kicked to the Curb: Cities are starting to follow New York’s example by allowing developers to eliminate or reduce parking requirements for condos and apartments in order to provide more density and cheaper prices.  However, there is a lot of concern over the impact of this move with regards to on-street parking in cities where mass transit infrastructure hasn’t kept up.

Profiles

Talking Your Book: One of Lyft’s co-founders believes that private car ownership will go the way of Johnny Manziel’s NFL career by 2025.

Grudge Match: Tesla’s battle with car dealers has the potential to reshape the way that cars are sold in the US.

The Paradox of Leisure: The rich were meant to have the most leisure time. The working poor were meant to have the least. The opposite is happening.  Here’s why.

Chart of the Day

Rise of the regional banks

RCA-CRE-capital-trends

WTF

Terrifying: A crazy woman from New Zealand made a handbag out of a dead cat and is trying to sell it for $1,400.

Broken Clocks: Brangelina broke up this week, meaning that those tabloid headlines that you’ve seen every time that you go to the grocery store for the last 10 years were finally correct.  If you believe Us Weekly, they broke up at least 31 times in the last decade.

Hero: Meet the 110 year old British woman who attributes her longevity to drinking whiskey on a daily basis.  See Also: New study suggests that people who don’t drink alcohol are more likely to die young.

Hell NO: South Carolina residents warned about clown trying to lure children into woods.

Video of the Day: Watch a diver catch video of great white shark attack on his GoPro off the coast of Santa Barbara (don’t worry, no blood).

Landmark Links – A candid look at the economy, real estate, and other things sometimes related.

Visit us at Landmarkcapitaladvisors.com

Landmark Links September 23rd – What’s the Point?

Landmark Links June 28th – Tank Commander

Byron-Scott-Driving-The-Lakers-Tank

Lead Story…  We spend a lot of time talking about the San Francisco housing markets and rightfully so: it’s a microcosm of all that is wrong with restrictive zoning in closed access US cities and the poster child for NIMBY obstructionism.  As such, San Francisco has managed to overshadow another North American market that is incredibly expensive and getting worse: Vancouver, BC  Year-over year, Vancouver’s benchmark housing index is up 30% to just under $900k while single family detached house prices increased a whopping 40% to $1.374MM (in US dollars) in a city where median household income is around $67k in US dollars – San Francisco is in the $82k range.  So how does an MSA with such a low median household income (one of the lowest of major Canadian cities) end up with a median home price that is among the highest? 1) Massive levels of housing demand from wealthy foreign investors, especially from China; and 2) Highly restrictive zoning that makes it difficult to add enough housing units to satisfy  that demand.  One critical distinction between SF and Vancouver is that much of Vancouver’s foreign purchases appear to be for investment purposes only while SF real estate has clearly benefited from the tech boom and it’s highly compensated workforce.  This, combined with the inability to build enough new units for residents, is leaving Vancouver with empty units that transact for nosebleed prices.  The increase in value was so extreme last year that at least one mathematician estimated that the rising land value of single family homes accounted for more than the entire employment income in the City of Vancouver and now over 90% of detached houses there are worth over $1MM.

Foreign buyers have come under increasing scrutiny of late for the impact that they are having on the worlds most expensive real estate markets.  Some of it is justified.  For example, the US Treasury department now requires that title insurance companies report the people behind shell companies on all-cash purchases over a certain level in NY and Miami in order to curtail money laundering.  Others like Great Britain, which increased the stamp duty on second home purchases by 3% and raised taxes on more expensive homes in an effort to drive down demand.  Few places though, have considered responding as harshly as Vancouver, which is considering a tax on vacant homes.    From the South China Morning Post:

Vancouver’s mayor Gregor Robertson says he is considering the introduction of a tax on empty homes, amid a roiling debate in the city about the role of Chinese money and offshore investors in North America’s most unaffordable real estate market.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV on Tuesday, Robertson said he was “looking at new regulation and a carrot-and-stick approach to making sure that houses aren’t empty in Vancouver,” including a tax on vacant homes. “If you’re not using your property – either living in it or renting it out – then you have to pay more tax. Because effectively it’s a business holding, and should be taxed accordingly.”

There is a very substantial difference between adding to transaction costs or requiring ownership disclosures, as the US and Britain are doing and what Vancouver’s mayor proposed here.  The steps taken by the US and Britain either increase transaction costs or regulatory paperwork in an effort to slow demand from a certain buying segment.  The Vancouver proposal takes a very different approach: it would actually increase the holding cost of foreign-owned (but unoccupied) real estate by imposing a different tax structure.  This isn’t limited to the purchase transaction, instead its a recurring annual cost.  More from the South China Morning Post:

A tax targeting vacant properties was proposed by dozens of economists in January.The BC Housing Affordability Fund, which has been pitched to both the City and British Columbia provincial government, would impose a 1.5 per cent annual tax (based on home price) on owners who either left homes vacant or had “limited economic or social ties to Canada”.

BCHAF proponent Tom Davidoff, an economist at the University of British Columbia, said it was unclear if Robertson’s remarks on Tuesday referred to his group’s proposal. “We talked to the city and they gave us a good listen,” he said.

“I would hope that any vacancy tax would cover the bigger issue here which is not paying taxes here and not being a landlord [either],” said Davidoff, whose group’s proposal would also tax people who under-utilised properties as a “pied-a-terre”, and those whose primary breadwinner paid little or no income tax in Canada – so-called “astronaut families”.

This strikes me as the quickest way to cause an exodus of foreign capital from a given real estate market because, unlike the US and British solutions, it would not just apply to new purchases.  It is also rife with the potential for unintended consequences.  For example, who is to say if a property is under-utilized?  Who actually gets to make that distinction and is there a hard and fast rule that could be applied.  If you were a foreign (or domestic for that matter) investor or homeowner who had a house there and you knew that costs were about to go up a proposed 1.5% a year based on home price (not unsubstantial on a million dollar home) would you hang around to see how it was implemented?  This type of tax could send foreign investors rushing towards the exit before a glut of supply hits the market as investors seek friendlier locales in which to invest.  At least it appears as if cooler heads are prevailing at the provincial and national level.  Again from the South China Morning Post:

Both Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and BC Premier Christy Clark have said they worry that taking steps to curtail foreign ownership in Vancouver could imperil the equity of existing owners.

I hope that Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Clark’s logic prevails as this would be an incredibly dumb way to tank a real estate market and the collateral economic damage done to existing homeowners would be all too real.  In all of the talk about how to bring Vancover’s prices under control, it seems as if no one (or at least very few people) are proposing a real solution: relaxing restrictive zoning codes so that more units could be built to meet demand.  Ultimately, that’s the only way to avoid what some are now calling a bubble.  Rather, we get more of the same convoluted restrictions, subsidies and taxes that don’t solve the actual problem and often do more harm than good.  The Vancouver mayor’s proposal is a tanking strategy that would make even the shittiest NBA team blush. Let’s that American cities with a large number of foreign investors don’t follow the example.

Economy

Tailwind: Per Calculated Risk, the largest population cohorts in the US are now 20-24 and 25-29 which is positive for the economy in general and housing in particular as young people begin to form households.

Brexit Breakdown: By now you probably know that UK residents voted to leave the EU, sending stock prices down the toilet around the globe and spurring demand for safe haven assets like treasuries and gold.  The betting markets got this one dead wrong as did pollsters and most government officials.  Despite the crazy market response, nothing will really change from a trade standpoint in the near-term and there is already a movement underway to try to reverse the referendum.  Either way, nothing is going to happen until this fall when British PM David Cameron resigns.  Here’s a quick roundup of what people far more knowledgeable than I are saying:

Tyler Cowen on why the Brexit happened and what it means.

George Soros on the future of Europe and why it might have more issues than Britain.

Gabriel Roth on why the actual Brexit might not ever actually happen

The BBC on the high likelihood of another Scottish independence vote as a result of the Brexit outcome.

See Also: S&P and Fitch downgrade UK credit rating.

Best House on a Bad Block: The US economy looks likely to weather the Brexit storm even if it puts the Fed on hold for a while longer.

Commercial

 

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner: How US REITs could benefit from the Brexit.

Residential

Scraping the Bottom: Brexit panic has pushed interest rates to record lows and mortgage rates are following and they could be headed even lower.

Profiles

Trade of the Century: The story of how George Soros’ Quantum Fund made trade of the century by breaking the British pound is especially fascinating today in light of recent world events.

Green Monsters: Avocado theft is on the rise.

Please Make it Stop: Enough with the stupid Millennial surveys already.

Chart of the Day

The US Demographic Tailwind

Population: Largest 5-Year Cohorts by Year
Largest
Cohorts
2010 2015 2020 2030
1 45 to 49 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 35 to 39 years
2 50 to 54 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 40 to 44 years
3 15 to 19 years 50 to 54 years 35 to 39 years 30 to 34 years
4 20 to 24 years 55 to 59 years Under 5 years 25 to 29 years
5 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 55 to 59 years 5 to 9 years
6 40 to 44 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 10 to 14 years
7 10 to 14 years 45 to 49 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years
8 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 60 to 64 years 15 to 19 years
9 Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years
10 35 to 39 years 35 to 39 years 10 to 14 years 45 to 49 years
11 30 to 34 years 40 to 44 years 50 to 54 years 50 to 54 years

Source: Calculated Risk

WTF

Video of the Day / Attempted Darwin Award:  It’s exceedingly rare that an attempted Darwin Award gets caught on video.  This past weekend, two morons attempted to surf a 20 + foot swell at The Wedge in Newport Beach on a rental jet ski despite being warned repeatedly by lifeguards to stay away.  It went horribly wrong with the jet ski ending up on top of the Newport Jetty before nearly sinking while getting swept out to sea as Newport’s lifeguards and local Wedge veterans saved the riders from their own epic stupidity.  No word on whether or not they got their deposit back.  Looks like it’s time to add some more chlorine to the gene pool.

Can You Spot the Irony? A man named Ronald McDonald was shot outside a Sonic in New York.

I’d Rather Eat My Shoe: Burger King recently introduced something called Mac N’ Cheetos.  The race to the bottom for the American fast food industry continues with no end in sight.

Landmark Links – A candid look at the economy, real estate, and other things sometimes related.

Visit us at Landmarkcapitaladvisors.com

Landmark Links June 28th – Tank Commander