Posts tagged as:

Rental

Housing: a good long-term bet

by drm on September 13, 2010

I’ve been preparing for a conference this week held by the investment bank DeSilva & Phillips. The concept is intriguing: the principals, Reed Phillips and Roland DeSilva, have invited eight CEOs of mid-market media companies to talk about the transformations in their business to an audience of about 100 members of the private equity and media banking community.

Ironically, the context for transformation is crisis, as the publishing segment of the media sector has been under extreme duress during the recession. While this duress has taken a toll on the capital structure of media companies, it has also forced business to focus, identify where their customers are and develop more flexible and web-centered business practices.

In preparing for my presentation, I’m forced to answer two basic questions: what is attractive about our company, Network Communications, Inc., and what is attractive about our market.

When you are positioned squarely against the housing market it’s easy to fall in to the trap that your market is a problem.

Perhaps the best way to disabuse people of that notion is to show them two charts.

housing market.jpg

The first looks at home prices since 1970. It is the simplest way of capturing the impact of the housing bubble. For a short period of time,home prices soared irrationally. What we know now is that the loans made against those soaring house prices helped fuel a fever in lending to the entire building market — resale, new homes, multi-family and commercial — that created an unimaginable glut of capacity just when demand was going to decline.

When we take a long view of prices, it is easy to conclude that the market has fallen back close to the norm, and that with a little more correction, the housing market will be where it need to be.

The drama of the price drop over-simplifies the dynamic impact the housing market has on the economy. The best way to measure that impact is to look at the effect of housing on Gross Domestic Product over time.

The second chart captures all components of housing as a percentage of GDP since 1970 and plots the ratio against the logarithmic trend. This analysis shows that housing as a percentage of GDP is significantly below its trend over the past couple of years.

Closer analysis of the number shows that the driver for reduced production in the housing sector is the overhang of excess capacity, coupled with conservatism in the lending markets.

The most volatile component of the housing sector is residential fixed investment, which includes the cost of building new homes and multi-family units, improving existing homes and paying commissions on the sales of homes.

From 1995 to 2005, residential fixed investment increased $319 billion to more than $700 billion.

Between 2005 and 2010, residential fixed investment declined $424 billion.

Historically, residential fixed investment has been about 5% of GDP. Currently it is at 2.7%. At the normalized rate, residential fixed investment would be around $650 billion, or 85% higher than current levels and 15-20% below the peak.

Has anything happened to change the long-term structural dynamics around residential investment? Not really. There are more efficient building techniques, and the overall size of structures is likely to diminish, but the demand for residential fixed investment is driven by the population’s housing need. Population grows, existing housing stock ages, bylining costs come down, and new capital pours in as part of a virtuous cycle.

The current challenge of the housing market is that the alignment between supply and demand still is not set. Demand is suppressed because of the weak employment market and frozen lending channels; supply is too strong because of the overhang of building during the housing boom.

Each quarter the housing market regulates a little bit more, and a recovery in the housing market is not that far away.

At that point, it will be clear that housing is a good market opportunity, with steady growth characteristics that will distinguish it during a particularly challenging decade for our transforming economy.

Share

{ 1 comment }

The U.S. economy lost more than 1 million households during the recession, even as the population grew more than 3.5 million, driving down home ownership and increasing rental vacancies at a rate that hasn’t been experienced in more than a generation.

Just as economic distress reduced households, economic recovery will increase households, concludes USC professor Gary Painter in a paper sponsored by the Research Institute for Housing America, a mortgage industry-backed think-tank.

As you read through What Happens to Household Formation in a Recession?, it becomes clear that the rebound in household formation will greatly benefit the rental market, while the impact to the residential real estate market will be more muted.

Finally, it will be important to observe a turnaround in home ownership rates before the housing market is likely to stabilize. This is because increases in initial household formation will disproportionately come from renters, which may cause home ownership to fall further. In addition, former homeowners who lost their homes due to foreclosure have had their credit damaged and will likely take time to repair their scores and secure a down payment. Once both of these classes of renters make the transition to home ownership then we would expect the housing market to stabilize.

Painter provides one of the most complete analyses of available data to capture what happens to households during changes in the economy. The graphic below illustrates the dynamic of households. During periods of economic stress and increased unemployment, more people combine households and fewer people leave existing households.

household formation model.png

Declines in employment and increases in the unemployment rate during periods of recession reduce household formation rates. Specifically, a national recession suppresses the formation of new renter households, while higher unemployment rates suppress the formation of both new renter and owner households.

The remarkable thing is how much those numbers add up: in all, a net decrease of 1.2 million households during the recession, Painter estimates.

The model…using data covering 6 recessions, predicts that rental household formation likely fell by 2–4 percentage points due to the current recession and that the formation of owner households likely fell by about 1 percentage point. Confirming these predictions, data from the ACS shows that formation of native-born households in a sample of 80 of the largest metropolitan areas has fallen by about 3 percentage points overall and by nearly 4 percentage points in the largest immigrant gateway metropolitan areas. This translates into a reduction of nearly 1.2 million households nationwide during a period where the population in these metropolitans grew by 3.4 million.

These figures help to explain the significant pressure on the residential home market and on the rental market.

As the table below demonstrates, the drop in home ownership that began in 2004 was accompanied by a sharp increase in vacant homes.

homeownership trends.png

At the same time, occupancy of rental units has decreased to generational lows, leaving one to wonder, Where have all these people gone?

Last month, Pew Research Center released data showing that multi-generational households — two or more generations sharing a home — had increased to 16% of the population during the recession. In raw numbers, this means that 7 million more people were living in multi-generational households in 2008 than were in 2000.

multigen hhs.png

That creates a depression of demand. Add in the glut of inventory that was created to satisfy the temporary demand of the housing bubble, and you’ve got the kind of discontinuity that drives down prices and disrupts the orderly progression of markets.

Interestingly, Painter shows that the elimination of households was disproportionately concentrated among native-born Americans, and particularly among households that had moved in during the recession.

homeownership rates by category.png

The good news in Painter’s analysis is that the signs of a rebound in household formation are apparent in his model.

The model suggests household formation should increase by about 2 percentage points from current levels by 2012, as people find jobs and recession-induced anxieties abate. That would imply that by 2012, normal rates of household formation should reappear (roughly 1–1.5 million new households per year), but it will take even longer before the U.S. completely recovers from the deficit in household formation caused by the severe recession.

As noted above, the first market to benefit from the gain will be rentals. The residential home market should recover more slowly, Painter argues.

To the degree that the economy rebounds more strongly, the recovery will be more rapid. The mystery of increased demand isn’t unsolvable: the dynamics that drive household formation need to reassert themselves, and the core drivers are jobs and incomes.

You can find the full report available for download here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Related Posts with Thumbnails
Share

{ 0 comments }