Tangentially: Vancouver has has an empty home tax for almost 5 years, this year the cities director of finance published a fairly long report that gives some insight on how it's going, including an EY report attached at the end. It's a long but pretty interesting read:
(two things I pulled out, they've put $115MM toward affordable housing directly from the tax, and, empty properties fell 20% 2020-2021 and the same again 2021-2022 - worth reading the report)
A little insight on Vancouver: PRC investment firms decided that the steady growth of the North American real estate market looked to provide great returns on investment. So, these firms started buying up large numbers of single-family homes in Vancouver. I've heard a few reasons for why they chose Vancouver: (1) the large amount of PRC nationals in Vancouver, (2) geographic proximity to the PRC (relative to other North American metropolitan areas), and (3) the closer relationship with the Canadian government (relative to the US).
Now, the investment firms took a different approach. Many ordinary people and even real estate firms will try to rent out their secondary properties, particularly if the property is in a major metropolitan area. Here, the firms didn't rent out the properties for any reason. Their investment strategy decreased the total available housing supply (for anyone, including renters) while demand kept increasing, so the home prices naturally skyrocketed. They sat on the properties and rode the tide.
The issue that Vancouver started encountering was that single-family homes on a regular residential block may be only 50% occupied. The end effect is you'd have families living on a regular ol' city block but with half the properties vacant, which destroys the development of community in that neighborhood. Also, because the Vancouver housing market pricing exploded, property taxes blew up, yet many residents' neighborhoods became a worse place to live. The housing market wasn't growing because of newfound desirability (e.g. Austin) or fresh industry (e.g. Atlanta and entertainment); in those cases, the new economic activity will provide benefit to the community in a variety of ways. The Vancouver situation only benefited the investment firms with no tangible benefit to the community.
Residents became understandably upset. Hence, the empty home tax was passed to disincentivize the investment firms' predatory investment strategy.
I believe the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act went into effect this year, it's going to be interesting to see if that does anything to help the situation, I'm cautiously hopeful. Fun story: When I graduated from college (20ish years ago) I moved to Toronto, one of my school buddies was a Chinese guy who mentioned he would be able to get me decent rent on a unit in a new construction condo because of some family connection. I took him up on it and lived there for 2 years. Over those 2 years I lived on a "ghost floor" - I was the only person on my floor and nobody was on the floor above or below. A family office had bought up 3 floors in the building and I was living on one of them. It was surreal to say the least.
>> A little insight on Vancouver: PRC investment firms decided that the steady growth of the North American real estate market looked to provide great returns on investment. So, these firms started buying up large numbers of single-family homes in Vancouver.
Reference required. Empirical evidence does not support your claim.
The PDF in the parent’s comment shows there were 1010 vacant homes in 2017 and 502 vancant homes in 2022.
Jens Avon Bergmann of MountainMath.ca did analysis after the 2021 numbers were released. His takeaway:
>> “The results demonstrate very little “toxic demand” leading to vacancies in BC, and provide valuable checks on estimates of “foreign” ownership.”
Please stop spreading this disinformation unless you have actual references with actual empirical evidence. It is actively harmful to supply-side solutions.
I am open to have my mind changed if you have evidence that toxic demand is actually causing significant harm. With significant harm defined as being one magnitude greater than the 500 vacant homes in the above PDF from the City of Vancouver.
Seems like there could be an opportunity for renters to approach vacant property owners and offer to stay in their homes for amounts, say, half of the vacancy tax.
> looked at census data on the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas and found there are 5.47 million vacant housing units, with an average vacancy rate of 7.22 percent.
This feels sensational. Imagine a common scenario: a unit is rented for 2 years (24 months), and then is vacant for 1 month while the owner repaints, performs maintenance, and relists the property for rental. That is 1/(24+1) = 4% vacancy. Given you can easily get to 4% vacancy with simple turnover, you can see why very low vacancy rates are bad for renters: they indicate it is extremely competitive to find housing. You can see this anecdotally in extremely tight housing markets like NYC where renters looking for apartments often report they need to move extremely quickly to secure rentals and some people even ofter to pay more than the listing price for desirable apartments.
I believe they accounted for this in the lending tree article. Looks like the main cause is units for rent at 26%, and units undergoing repair are at 6%.
I’ll say from personal experience it is somewhat rare to have this one month gap period between renters. I tend to see the super (manager) paint the unit in 1-2 days or even overnight. Then repairs can happen as the tenant reports them while living in the unit, barring any severe damage.
That example hit 4%, but that’s a long way from 7.22 percent. It’s common for rental properties to be occupied by the same tenants for 10 years or longer, 7.22% of that is 8.7+ months which suggests the 7.22% is further concentrated around shorter rental periods.
It’s the same deal with unemployment, 7% is much worse than 4% even though the numbers aren’t that far apart because it’s a composite of a baseline and issues.
Common, really? Have you got any kind of figures to back that up? Because anecdotally speaking neither I nor anyone known to me has ever rented for anywhere near ten years. I always get curious when claimed statistics greatly disagree with my experience.
One issue is with how the census/fed defines vacancy.
>A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of the interview, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent. In addition, a vacant unit may be one which is entirely occupied by persons who have a usual residence elsewhere. New units not yet occupied are classified as vacant housing units if construction has reached a point where all exterior windows and doors are installed and final usable floors are in place.
If a builder is building a house and it has a roof/windows/doors/floors but no occupancy permit, utilities are not hooked up, and there are no appliances/furniture that is counted as 'vacant' even though you technically can't live there.
If I left an apartment today (12th) and my lease ends the 30th. Even if a lease is in place at the start of the next month that still counts as a vacancy.
If I have a 2nd home I share with family/friends/short term lease that is generally occupied, it's still "vacant".
This is the true math right here. An apartment that is occupied for a year, then takes a month to lease out again, results in an 8% vacancy rate. That’s just one of the reasons. People who think we can drive the vacancy rate down, even though it already stands at a record low, are crazy.
I hear such conflicting information. For a normal looking new development, I hear that developers are looking to offload asap to recoup the investment. Certain markets in America make it almost seem as if these investors are willing to wait years for rates to come back up.
I don't think Powell gives two fucks about the inflation or unemployment rate. Think he's very interested in cost of living and rent more than anything else. Housing prices barely have moved down at we're on the wrong side over 5%. If housing just thinks its going to wait this wait out and emerge from all of this with this inflated money house has left in tact, while the rest of get slammed by the waves, well ... well I guess I've seen dumber stuff.
Housing needs to get hit for any of this to be worthing anything.
There’s no conflict. Developers are building and selling as soon as they can. That’s their job and that’s their business model.
The people withholding units from the market are your normal landlords and speculators who can stomach reduced rents in the income. They need to be taxed out of existence. LVT continues to be the right answer here, both for incentivizing development and disincentivizing speculation/holdouts.
The vacancy rate suggests most vacant units are in-between occupants, something you'd require for a healthy market. The vacancy rate should probably be double what it is -- it's probably at historic lows.
Another option that I really like is forcing rent control on landlords who don't have at least 80% occupancy. Don't want to reduce your rents to market rate? Fine, the law will do that for you.
If you print a trillion dollars and give it to the lower and middle class, they'd spend a good chunk of it in a few days to a year(see covid checks and unemployment bonuses) eventually resulting in inflation that disproportionately affects the low income folks, so it's temporary relief which is great during things like pandemics. If the same money is given(or flows) to the super rich folks, they either save it or buy appreciable assets, since they already pretty much already have everything they need.
So the fed doesn't have any other good options. They cannot raise taxes on the rich or institute a wealth tax or 'take' the rich's assets. That's up to Congress. Blaming the Fed I think is unproductive because they seem to be doing their job trying to balance low inflation and a low unemployment rate as much as they can, within the limitations of only being able to change interest rates and quantitative tightening/easing(not to mention things like the war in Ukraine increasing energy prices which affect prices of almost everything). If you had the choice between high(or run away) inflation and slightly higher unemployment(which was historically low), what would you choose? Wage increases are eaten up by inflation.
Asset inflation at this point is a runaway process caused by companies raising prices to cover increased costs and adding a margin for safety because of volatility. Companies in one area raising prices has a downstream effect, both in raising costs for other producers, and in allowing other producers to raise prices because of people's expectation of "inflation."
> The feds actions show they want high asset prices relative to wages.
It’s an economic axiom that high interest rates mean lower asset prices.
So can you explain what you mean?
Also - as far as I know every us city except for Miami has had a decline in real estate prices - so again - where are you and everyone in this thread getting information? Anecdotes?
Developers are not investors. They borrow money to build and hope to sell at a profit. It’s just like a new car dealership. The “inventory” isn’t owned by the builder or lot, it’s owned by the bank. The builder pays interest, taxes, insurance, every day a home sits unsold. They are motivated to sell and due to market factors they are starting to offer steep discounts. Now existing homes are a bit of a different story. There is a mix of owners and investors and they are likely locked in at a comparably low rate. If they bought in the last 2 years they may even be underwater. And if looking to move they may need to get a certain price to be able to get into their next home.
The investors keeping a building empty don't care about return on investment like most investors do they want to hide assests from their local government and possible have a place to flee to if things get even worse locally.
Investors looking for a return on investment want to rent everything. They leave property empty when remodeling, or when between tenants.
If property prices are going up 10% per year and price to rent is 30:1 (Vancouver) - to some it's not worth the risk of renting out the property.
You're just banking on leveraged appreciation.
Take a $2M condo. The rent is will be ~$60k for a year. The appreciation will be ~$200k, and the the principal (@ 3% interest - which they have if they're leaving it empty - is $35k).
You're getting an expected $235k if you leave it empty, and $280k (after vacancy and management) if you take on the risk of renting it.
Why go through all the hassle when the government is doing everything they can to pump up prices on leverage?
In high demand metropolitan areas, I don't see how housing prices are ever going to take a hit. There are plenty of young, well-paid professionals interested in good real estate who are capable of and willing to pay high prices. Demand is severely constrained because interest rates are high. I can't see how the needle is going to move unless rates drop.
For the purpose of understanding how housing markets work, I don’t think homes that the owners use part of the year and aren’t offered for rent should count. It doesn’t seem like there’s any mystery about that? They own it for their own use. Some places have very seasonal demand.
But the article also talks about some cities where there is housing for rent, but not at prices where anyone will rent it. That’s curious. It would be interesting to find out more about what’s going on there.
One big source of apartments being too expensive to rent is investment companies swooping in to buy apartment buildings, hoping the _building itself_ will appreciate in value, so that they can then sell it later at a profit. In this model, it's actually against the owner's interest to rent apartments because renters inevitably cause damage that needs fixing, which cuts into the owner's bottom line and makes the building less resellable. So, the solution is to charge exorbitant, insane above market rents; a small number of fools with more money than sense will rent at that price, and that will help cover loan interest costs, etc. in the meantime. With enough starting capital, renting to a few tenants at very high prices is a much better investment than renting to many tenants at market rates. You just hope that the building appreciates by a large margin in the next X years while your few, wealthy tenants pay your interest, and then you can sell the whole building to the next investor.
Now, is this ethical? Abso-fucking-lutely not. Not only is it basically a bigger fool scam, it takes an extremely valuable and important commodity (housing) out of the market for no reason other than financial gain. I'm of the opinion that apartment buildings should be required to maintain 80% occupancy or risk having their apartments go rent controlled; if you aren't willing to rent at market rates in order to provide the service you claim to provide, you're taking housing away from people who need it, and you should be punished for it. Sure, you can argue that real estate is an investment and therefore these ghouls have the right to do this, but IMO becoming a landlord should come with the social responsibility to _increase_ housing supply and availability, not decrease it. If you're not willing to play by those rules you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the market.
No major real estate investor has a thesis of pure speculation. That would be insane and banks would never underwrite it. (If anything, buying for speculation is almost entirely the business of individual households who get huge subsidies to do so.)
No. This is not how any of this works and you’re wildly speculating.
A multifamily property is worth some multiple of its Net Operating Income. Almost all
Multifamily properties are acquired with debt. No lender will grant a loan for a property that has a high asking price, high rents and high vacancy.
I’m not an expert in real estate but this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Sometimes tenants might do so much damage that it would be better to not have rented the unit at all, but this hardly seems likely for most tenants?
Also, it seems like an apartment building that’s mostly rented out would sell for more than one that’s mostly vacant and losing money? Assuming it’s not a teardown.
It seems like it’s similar to any other business. A profitable business would go for more than an unprofitable one.
I can see it as a reason to be picky about tenants, though.
in sleepy seacoast new hampshire I overheard a local with a sharp quip about the rich owners of vacant autumn luxury waterfront apartments: "it's not your presence we despise, it's your absence"
Probably should be careful what they wish for. It seems to me that unused vacation properties are optimal for the residents: they pay much higher taxes as a secondary residence and they don't cause traffic or consume any resources.
The community would rather either have cheaper housing for actual residents, or the wealthy person spending their money there regularly. What we have is the worst of both worlds.
Yup, locals in vacation areas always like to complain about their revenue & employment source.
Having a large cohort paying full property taxes without consuming services (police & school being the largest) either suppresses the locals taxes or increases the services they would be able to get otherwise.
Everyone wants to live in the goldilocks situation of a desirable area with low prices, good services, low taxes, good commutes (low traffic and-or good transit), and plentiful jobs. I've lived in various areas from rural, suburban to Manhattan and.. you can usually have 2.5 out of 5 at best.
What kind of resources do you mean? They still have to heat and power their homes, so it still “consumes resources”. Unless you are talking about buying local groceries or something.
Propery taxes are the same in NH whether someone lives there full time or not, so it doesn’t matter that they aren’t there and would be equally valuable if they did live full time. The traffic argument is the only one I can see being true, except that traffic in the seacoast is awful already anyway with tourists driving back and forth to Maine.
Personally, I think having permanent residents is far better for a town than a graveyard of empty soulless homes, but I’m just a regular human being and I’m sure its just a matter of opinion at that point.
There's a really nice solution that works well in Switzerland - you either pay tax from the actual rent or a tax on a virtual rent, if the property stays unoccupied.
1% is insanely dysfunctionaly low. It doesn’t allow for units to stay vacant between tenants for repairs and cleaning. At 1% the unit is vacant for 3 days every year on average. That’s not enough time for basic things to be done and indicates an incredibly tight rental market
> It doesn’t allow for units to stay vacant between tenants for repairs and cleaning.
Cleaning is done by the previous tenant, or usually by a company the hire. Repairs are done on an on-going basis.
Helpful, I guess. But it feels like a case where aggregated data makes for a better narrative.
For example, the article says, "About 26.6 percent of the nation’s vacant housing units are actively available for rent." Does that mean the landlords are having trouble finding qualified tenants? If so, then the real issue is the disconnect between inventory and what those seeking shelter can afford.
A $5000 p/m unit being held back if 99% of those needing a place to live can't afford it.
Housing availablity is like jobs creation. X new jobs? Ok. Whatever. But at what rate of pay? With what benefits? A job is not a transparent unit of measure. The devil in these things is in the details.
If you look at the report, there are a few cities like Miami that reasonably fit a fairly HCOL area narrative with good growth prospects. And some other, like Raleigh, that are smaller markets but have had pretty good growth in tech and otherwise. But there are a lot of cities on that list like New Orleans and Memphis where real estate affordability is presumably in the context of mediocre employment prospects and low wages. Housing affordability is almost always going to be an issue if you can't get a job in the location.
> Housing affordability is almost always going to be an issue if you can't get a job in the location.
Perhaps. But supply (as in supply and demand) plays a key role as well. The ratio between higher-end and "affordable" seems to keep trending in the wrong direction.
I'm not suggesting everyone should own a home, that's impracticable and economically dangerous. On the otherhand, too much of a resource (e.g., hoysing) controlled by too few hands has serious economic consequences. Perhaps, eventually, sociopolitical consequences.
Readit News
https://council.vancouver.ca/20230510/documents/cfsc2.pdf
(two things I pulled out, they've put $115MM toward affordable housing directly from the tax, and, empty properties fell 20% 2020-2021 and the same again 2021-2022 - worth reading the report)
Now, the investment firms took a different approach. Many ordinary people and even real estate firms will try to rent out their secondary properties, particularly if the property is in a major metropolitan area. Here, the firms didn't rent out the properties for any reason. Their investment strategy decreased the total available housing supply (for anyone, including renters) while demand kept increasing, so the home prices naturally skyrocketed. They sat on the properties and rode the tide.
The issue that Vancouver started encountering was that single-family homes on a regular residential block may be only 50% occupied. The end effect is you'd have families living on a regular ol' city block but with half the properties vacant, which destroys the development of community in that neighborhood. Also, because the Vancouver housing market pricing exploded, property taxes blew up, yet many residents' neighborhoods became a worse place to live. The housing market wasn't growing because of newfound desirability (e.g. Austin) or fresh industry (e.g. Atlanta and entertainment); in those cases, the new economic activity will provide benefit to the community in a variety of ways. The Vancouver situation only benefited the investment firms with no tangible benefit to the community.
Residents became understandably upset. Hence, the empty home tax was passed to disincentivize the investment firms' predatory investment strategy.
Vancouver was the perfect place for the reasons you mentioned and geography, it’s hard to expand the housing supply.
And an existing drug trade to tap into in order to facilitate the funds required!
Reference required. Empirical evidence does not support your claim.
The PDF in the parent’s comment shows there were 1010 vacant homes in 2017 and 502 vancant homes in 2022.
Jens Avon Bergmann of MountainMath.ca did analysis after the 2021 numbers were released. His takeaway:
>> “The results demonstrate very little “toxic demand” leading to vacancies in BC, and provide valuable checks on estimates of “foreign” ownership.”
https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2021/11/21/three-years-...
Please stop spreading this disinformation unless you have actual references with actual empirical evidence. It is actively harmful to supply-side solutions.
I am open to have my mind changed if you have evidence that toxic demand is actually causing significant harm. With significant harm defined as being one magnitude greater than the 500 vacant homes in the above PDF from the City of Vancouver.
This feels sensational. Imagine a common scenario: a unit is rented for 2 years (24 months), and then is vacant for 1 month while the owner repaints, performs maintenance, and relists the property for rental. That is 1/(24+1) = 4% vacancy. Given you can easily get to 4% vacancy with simple turnover, you can see why very low vacancy rates are bad for renters: they indicate it is extremely competitive to find housing. You can see this anecdotally in extremely tight housing markets like NYC where renters looking for apartments often report they need to move extremely quickly to secure rentals and some people even ofter to pay more than the listing price for desirable apartments.
I’ll say from personal experience it is somewhat rare to have this one month gap period between renters. I tend to see the super (manager) paint the unit in 1-2 days or even overnight. Then repairs can happen as the tenant reports them while living in the unit, barring any severe damage.
It’s the same deal with unemployment, 7% is much worse than 4% even though the numbers aren’t that far apart because it’s a composite of a baseline and issues.
>A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of the interview, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent. In addition, a vacant unit may be one which is entirely occupied by persons who have a usual residence elsewhere. New units not yet occupied are classified as vacant housing units if construction has reached a point where all exterior windows and doors are installed and final usable floors are in place.
If a builder is building a house and it has a roof/windows/doors/floors but no occupancy permit, utilities are not hooked up, and there are no appliances/furniture that is counted as 'vacant' even though you technically can't live there.
If I left an apartment today (12th) and my lease ends the 30th. Even if a lease is in place at the start of the next month that still counts as a vacancy.
If I have a 2nd home I share with family/friends/short term lease that is generally occupied, it's still "vacant".
I don't think Powell gives two fucks about the inflation or unemployment rate. Think he's very interested in cost of living and rent more than anything else. Housing prices barely have moved down at we're on the wrong side over 5%. If housing just thinks its going to wait this wait out and emerge from all of this with this inflated money house has left in tact, while the rest of get slammed by the waves, well ... well I guess I've seen dumber stuff.
Housing needs to get hit for any of this to be worthing anything.
The people withholding units from the market are your normal landlords and speculators who can stomach reduced rents in the income. They need to be taxed out of existence. LVT continues to be the right answer here, both for incentivizing development and disincentivizing speculation/holdouts.
Edit: Yep, vacant units per capita are at historic lows. We have a construction problem not a vacancy problem: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=131FW#0.
The feds actions show they want high asset prices relative to wages.
The plan is exactly as you describe. "Asset inflation good, wage inflation bad" is government policy at this point.
So the fed doesn't have any other good options. They cannot raise taxes on the rich or institute a wealth tax or 'take' the rich's assets. That's up to Congress. Blaming the Fed I think is unproductive because they seem to be doing their job trying to balance low inflation and a low unemployment rate as much as they can, within the limitations of only being able to change interest rates and quantitative tightening/easing(not to mention things like the war in Ukraine increasing energy prices which affect prices of almost everything). If you had the choice between high(or run away) inflation and slightly higher unemployment(which was historically low), what would you choose? Wage increases are eaten up by inflation.
It’s an economic axiom that high interest rates mean lower asset prices.
So can you explain what you mean?
Also - as far as I know every us city except for Miami has had a decline in real estate prices - so again - where are you and everyone in this thread getting information? Anecdotes?
Investors looking for a return on investment want to rent everything. They leave property empty when remodeling, or when between tenants.
You're just banking on leveraged appreciation.
Take a $2M condo. The rent is will be ~$60k for a year. The appreciation will be ~$200k, and the the principal (@ 3% interest - which they have if they're leaving it empty - is $35k).
You're getting an expected $235k if you leave it empty, and $280k (after vacancy and management) if you take on the risk of renting it.
Why go through all the hassle when the government is doing everything they can to pump up prices on leverage?
Endure, they will cave eventually. They always cave.
But the article also talks about some cities where there is housing for rent, but not at prices where anyone will rent it. That’s curious. It would be interesting to find out more about what’s going on there.
Now, is this ethical? Abso-fucking-lutely not. Not only is it basically a bigger fool scam, it takes an extremely valuable and important commodity (housing) out of the market for no reason other than financial gain. I'm of the opinion that apartment buildings should be required to maintain 80% occupancy or risk having their apartments go rent controlled; if you aren't willing to rent at market rates in order to provide the service you claim to provide, you're taking housing away from people who need it, and you should be punished for it. Sure, you can argue that real estate is an investment and therefore these ghouls have the right to do this, but IMO becoming a landlord should come with the social responsibility to _increase_ housing supply and availability, not decrease it. If you're not willing to play by those rules you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the market.
A multifamily property is worth some multiple of its Net Operating Income. Almost all Multifamily properties are acquired with debt. No lender will grant a loan for a property that has a high asking price, high rents and high vacancy.
Source: I have owned many multifamily properties.
Also, it seems like an apartment building that’s mostly rented out would sell for more than one that’s mostly vacant and losing money? Assuming it’s not a teardown.
It seems like it’s similar to any other business. A profitable business would go for more than an unprofitable one.
I can see it as a reason to be picky about tenants, though.
Everyone wants to live in the goldilocks situation of a desirable area with low prices, good services, low taxes, good commutes (low traffic and-or good transit), and plentiful jobs. I've lived in various areas from rural, suburban to Manhattan and.. you can usually have 2.5 out of 5 at best.
Propery taxes are the same in NH whether someone lives there full time or not, so it doesn’t matter that they aren’t there and would be equally valuable if they did live full time. The traffic argument is the only one I can see being true, except that traffic in the seacoast is awful already anyway with tourists driving back and forth to Maine.
Personally, I think having permanent residents is far better for a town than a graveyard of empty soulless homes, but I’m just a regular human being and I’m sure its just a matter of opinion at that point.
Vacant properties are around 1% here.
For example, the article says, "About 26.6 percent of the nation’s vacant housing units are actively available for rent." Does that mean the landlords are having trouble finding qualified tenants? If so, then the real issue is the disconnect between inventory and what those seeking shelter can afford.
A $5000 p/m unit being held back if 99% of those needing a place to live can't afford it.
Housing availablity is like jobs creation. X new jobs? Ok. Whatever. But at what rate of pay? With what benefits? A job is not a transparent unit of measure. The devil in these things is in the details.
Perhaps. But supply (as in supply and demand) plays a key role as well. The ratio between higher-end and "affordable" seems to keep trending in the wrong direction.
I'm not suggesting everyone should own a home, that's impracticable and economically dangerous. On the otherhand, too much of a resource (e.g., hoysing) controlled by too few hands has serious economic consequences. Perhaps, eventually, sociopolitical consequences.