Blog
Últimos mensajes
Temas mas recientes
|
1
« Último mensaje por Derby en Hoy a las 17:12:00 »
2
El artículo del Canadá de Trudeau es esclarecedor. Mucho.
Pero hay una frase que me choca. "billions of dollars are being thrown at the problem."... ¿Cuántos millones de euros se han lanzad desde las arcas públicas españolas para solucionar el problema? La construcción de vivienda pública en España desde 2008 ha bajado a niveles de risa. Ya no hay sorteos de viviendas en polideportivos que paralizan la vida de la ciudad y dan lugar a cotilleos y conversaciones entre marujas (recuerdos de hace 20 años, en la pequeña capital del norte, donde mis amigos todavía viven felices con sus familias). Por otro lado, las rebajas fiscales no han sido muchas (el 60% de los rendimientos netos de alquiler, ahora un porcentaje variable según la edad del inquilino, la alineación de los planetas y la situación del inmueble y los que todavía tengan la hipoteca desde antes de 2013).
Que en Canadá lanzan millones y no solucionan nada y aquí no solucionamos nada pero no lanzamos millones. No sé que es preferible.
3
« Último mensaje por Derby en Hoy a las 17:05:56 »
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-s-manufacturers-shrink-in-may-as-orders-drop-industrial-side-of-the-economy-is-soft-ed4916a0‘The manufacturing side of the economy appears to have stalled,’ ISM says
ISM manufacturing index falls to 48.7% in May
American manufacturers are treading water. AFP via Getty Images
The numbers: A key barometer of U.S. factories fell to a three-month low as new orders waned and businesses were reluctant to invest due to high interest rates.
“The manufacturing side of the economy appears to have stalled,” said Timothy Fiore, chairman of the Institute for Supply Management’s manufacturing index.
The index fell to 48.7% in May from 49.2% in the prior month. Numbers below 50% signal that the manufacturing sector is contracting.
The ISM report is viewed as a window into the health of the economy. Economists polled by the Wall Street Journal had forecast the index to rise slightly last month.
Big picture: The industrial side of the economy is unlikely to generate sustained growth until interest rates fall and a lower cost of borrowing entices consumers and business customers to buy more goods or invest.
“Companies are extremely cautious with any form of investment,” Fiore said.
At the same time, higher prices of raw materials such as oil, plastics, copper, aluminum are putting upward pressure on prices. That could keep inflation elevated.
Market reaction: The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -0.48% fell, but the S&P 500 SPX, -0.18%, rose in Monday trades.
5
« Último mensaje por Derby en Hoy a las 16:47:35 »
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/06/03/financial-capital-is-not-scarce-so-why-do-we-pay-so-much-for-it/Financial capital is not scarce, so why do we pay so much for it?
(...)This is a situation which Keynes has said has outlived its usefulness. It's time that we imagined a world where low interest rates were there in perpetuity and we worked out how to manage capital better.
Not so that money goes into stupid things, like pushing up the price of shares or the price of homes inappropriately, but into the productive well-being of the economy, so that we have the technology we need to meet our needs.
And our needs are really big, because without investment, we can't manage climate change.
And these issues are intimately related.
6
« Último mensaje por Derby en Hoy a las 16:43:35 »
Se veía venir, verdad?  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-03/blackstone-s-59-billion-property-trust-hit-by-starwood-falloutBlackstone’s $59 Billion Property Trust Hit by Starwood Fallout
Property trusts have come under heightened pressure as real estate values have plunged.Photographer: Alex Kraus/Bloomberg
A $59 billion Blackstone Inc. property trust is contending with the fallout from a rival’s decision to enforce stricter limits on investors.
Repurchase requests by investors in Blackstone Real Estate Income Trust ticked up in May, according to a shareholder letter Monday, after rival Starwood Real Estate Income Trust tightened limits. Starwood’s decision further chilled investor sentiment about a real estate sector hammered by rising rates.
BREIT’s board agreed to allow the trust to exceed a 2% monthly limit in order to be able to fulfill all of its withdrawal requests in May. In both April and May, BREIT has returned about 4.4% of its net asset value to investors.
The trust has “no plans” to change its share repurchase program, according to the letter.
Property trusts have come under heightened pressure as real estate values have plunged. Last month, the $10 billion Starwood Real Estate Income Trust capped monthly redemptions at 0.33% of net asset value, down from its previous 2% monthly limit, as it faced a liquidity crunch.
Blackstone President Jon Gray said Starwood’s issues led more BREIT investors to ask for their money back.
“There’s been some news based on this SREIT dynamic that creates some increase in redemptions, but nothing like what we experienced back in the beginning of 2023,” Gray said at an investor conference in May.
BREIT’s outflow requests began to rise in late 2022 and the trust had to impose its limits as interest rates climbed and real estate values fell, threatening returns for investors in the trust that had been a major growth engine for Blackstone. In March, BREIT marked what appeared to be a milestone and allowed investors to withdraw as much as they wanted.
The firm said its requests declined until the last two weeks of May 2024, when SREIT set more restrictive limits on redemptions. Blackstone, without mentioning the REIT by name, tried to set itself apart from Starwood’s vehicle. BREIT said in the shareholder letter that its portfolio and liquidity — it can tap into about $7.5 billion — is “materially different” to its rival and cited its bets on data centers and student housing.
Total net returns at the Blackstone trust have fallen sharply since borrowing costs began climbing in early 2022. A popular share class of BREIT gained 2.2% through April of this year after a 0.5% loss in 2023.
The Starwood trust generated a total return of 1.67% this year through April, following a loss of 8.6% in 2023.
7
« Último mensaje por Vipamo en Hoy a las 16:28:25 »
https://stevesaretsky.substack.com/p/no-panacea
No Panacea
Happy Monday morning!
Housing affordability, or lack thereof, is all the rage these days. Politicians from every colour of the political rainbow are rallying around restoring some semblance of price stability, or so they say.
They’ve been working hard lately, through mass rezoning, tax breaks on new rental construction, and even housing catalogues. In fact, billions of dollars are being thrown at the problem.
How will we know if any of it worked? For most people they’d tell you housing affordability will have been achieved when prices are lower.
However, in a recent podcast interview with The Globe & Mail, Trudeau said the quiet part out loud.
For affordability to improve, do home prices have to come down?
“No. I think housing prices and houses will always be valuable in this country,” but “anyone who hopes for housing prices to remain on the kind of trajectory they’ve been on over the past decade or two should maybe think about what kind of society or world they want to live in.”
On the other hand, “housing needs to retain its value,” because “it’s a huge part of people’s potential for retirement and future and nest egg.”
In other words, everyone wants affordable housing but nobody wants their house to become affordable.
Trudeau just reiterated what we already knew. Housing is politically backstopped, and we must not jeopardize the 30 year bull market. After all, the tax free primary residence has become the defacto retirement plan for most boomers.
Inflating home prices have also been a boon for government coffers. The tax revenues derived from housing via capital gains taxes, property transfer taxes, development fees and property taxes are what underpin the entire system.
Trudeau’s freudian slip was an admission of what we already knew, maintaining home prices is a matter of national security.
So how else do we achieve housing affordability? We are told we can build our way out, yet housing starts are crashing as we speak, despite billions being thrown at municipalities to unlock zoning.
Over in the orange corner, Jagmeet says we should build affordable housing on all federally owned land. However, an analysis from the Globe & Mail this week highlights the grim reality.
Using the government’s federal registry of properties, The Globe identified federally-owned land that is at least half an acre in size, sitting vacant or occupied by a building not more than two storeys, and located in municipalities with at least 10,000 people.
After a months-long analysis, The Globe found 613 pieces of lazy land in cities and towns across the country – a collection of federal real estate large enough to create about 288,000 new housing units.
In other words, if we took all the under utilized federally owned land and redeveloped it for affordable housing we would create 288,000 new housing units which is the equivalent to just over a years worth of completions in any given year.
So now what?
If we could get incomes to rise faster than house prices, over a long enough period of time, housing could slowly get more affordable. But that is no quick fix, and everyone is looking for quick fixes.
The fact that real GDP per capita has now been declining for seven consecutive quarters isn’t helping that idea either. According to RBC we are now marred in what appears to be a lost decade.
People don’t like to hear this but there really is no panacea for housing in this country. This is just the uncomfortable truth.
Housing affordability will ultimately be achieved through some form of an exogenous shock outside of the governments control, creating a temporary over supply of housing and lower prices. Kind of like what we’re experiencing now with an inflationary shock that ripped interest rates higher and will probably keep them there for the foreseeable future, regardless of what the BoC does this week.
¡Sorpresa! 
Gracias por traer este artículo Sudden. Al final ese es el kit de la cuestión. Una bajada de precios en los hactibos significa una pérdida de patrimonio de gran parte de los actores. ¿Cómo va a interesar jorobar a una mayoría (gente con ladrillo), para mejorar a una minoría (jóvenes sin ladrillo pero que heredarán)?
8
« Último mensaje por Derby en Hoy a las 16:28:09 »
9
« Último mensaje por Derby en Hoy a las 16:19:12 »
https://www.ft.com/content/cbb9b949-1262-4d72-9ee7-6035c3e022d2Fed official says interest rates should stay on hold for ‘extended’ time
Neel Kashkari warns cutting too early could risk US economic prosperity
A top Federal Reserve official has called for interest rates to stay on hold for an “extended” time, saying lowering borrowing costs before inflation was under control would put the foundations of US prosperity at risk.
Neel Kashkari, Minneapolis Fed president, also told the FT podcast The Economics Show that Americans’ “visceral” hatred of inflation meant that some people would prefer a recession to a jump in prices.
“The economy is, in the US, quite strong, the labour market is strong, inflation is coming down and many, many people are deeply unhappy about the status of the economy,” he said. “I think it’s because of the high inflation that they’ve experienced.”(...)
10
https://stevesaretsky.substack.com/p/no-panacea
No Panacea
Happy Monday morning!
Housing affordability, or lack thereof, is all the rage these days. Politicians from every colour of the political rainbow are rallying around restoring some semblance of price stability, or so they say.
They’ve been working hard lately, through mass rezoning, tax breaks on new rental construction, and even housing catalogues. In fact, billions of dollars are being thrown at the problem.
How will we know if any of it worked? For most people they’d tell you housing affordability will have been achieved when prices are lower.
However, in a recent podcast interview with The Globe & Mail, Trudeau said the quiet part out loud.
For affordability to improve, do home prices have to come down?
“No. I think housing prices and houses will always be valuable in this country,” but “anyone who hopes for housing prices to remain on the kind of trajectory they’ve been on over the past decade or two should maybe think about what kind of society or world they want to live in.”
On the other hand, “housing needs to retain its value,” because “it’s a huge part of people’s potential for retirement and future and nest egg.”
In other words, everyone wants affordable housing but nobody wants their house to become affordable.
Trudeau just reiterated what we already knew. Housing is politically backstopped, and we must not jeopardize the 30 year bull market. After all, the tax free primary residence has become the defacto retirement plan for most boomers.
Inflating home prices have also been a boon for government coffers. The tax revenues derived from housing via capital gains taxes, property transfer taxes, development fees and property taxes are what underpin the entire system.
Trudeau’s freudian slip was an admission of what we already knew, maintaining home prices is a matter of national security.
So how else do we achieve housing affordability? We are told we can build our way out, yet housing starts are crashing as we speak, despite billions being thrown at municipalities to unlock zoning.
Over in the orange corner, Jagmeet says we should build affordable housing on all federally owned land. However, an analysis from the Globe & Mail this week highlights the grim reality.
Using the government’s federal registry of properties, The Globe identified federally-owned land that is at least half an acre in size, sitting vacant or occupied by a building not more than two storeys, and located in municipalities with at least 10,000 people.
After a months-long analysis, The Globe found 613 pieces of lazy land in cities and towns across the country – a collection of federal real estate large enough to create about 288,000 new housing units.
In other words, if we took all the under utilized federally owned land and redeveloped it for affordable housing we would create 288,000 new housing units which is the equivalent to just over a years worth of completions in any given year.
So now what?
If we could get incomes to rise faster than house prices, over a long enough period of time, housing could slowly get more affordable. But that is no quick fix, and everyone is looking for quick fixes.
The fact that real GDP per capita has now been declining for seven consecutive quarters isn’t helping that idea either. According to RBC we are now marred in what appears to be a lost decade.
People don’t like to hear this but there really is no panacea for housing in this country. This is just the uncomfortable truth.
Housing affordability will ultimately be achieved through some form of an exogenous shock outside of the governments control, creating a temporary over supply of housing and lower prices. Kind of like what we’re experiencing now with an inflationary shock that ripped interest rates higher and will probably keep them there for the foreseeable future, regardless of what the BoC does this week. ¡Sorpresa!
|
Mensajes recientes
