Dr. Peter Linneman
Leading Economist, Former Wharton Professor
Renowned economist Dr. Peter Linneman once again dazzled us with numbers as he spoke about job growth and the CRE industry's path forward.
Renowned economist Dr. Peter Linneman once again dazzled us with numbers. He and Willy spoke about everything from COVID recovery and job growth to inflation and the CRE industry's path forward, with data to back up each assertion. As per usual, it was an hour filled with insight!
Today's episode features another discussion with Dr. Peter Linneman, Principal of Linneman and Associates. To begin, Willy and Peter discuss predictions for the labor markets in light of federal unemployment benefits expiration. Though it was a well-intended policy, people were simply not enticed to rejoin the workforce and give up the benefits. Had Covid never reared its head, the GDP would have been about 4% higher. Peter expects the GDP to grow between 4.5-6% higher and the addition of 6 million jobs in the coming year.
Next, they touch on one of the most discussed topics of the moment: inflation. In July, inflation was about 5.1%, but 20% of that number was due to used cars. After doing some research, Peter discovered the role car rental agencies, who pivoted to selling their used car stack once the pandemic hit, played a major part in this. In comparison to the early stages of Covid, when people weren't interested in buying new cars, the demand for used cars is now disproportionately high, and the supply is abnormally low. While this model won't last forever, it will take time to find the balance between supply and demand. Housing, however, is a factor within inflation that is not transitory as housing has been underproduced for the previous 20 years.
Peter shares there is likely stickiness around wages to come, seeing as many large companies such as Amazon have drastically increased their pay. Since the change has already occurred, he says this won't further impact inflation. Although there is no major population increase in the U.S. right now, Peter is firm in that we are undersupplied in housing. As home prices continue to rise, buyers are challenged by large down payments. While the national savings rate is going down, early deaths due to Covid still are giving bequests to many.
Since American household debt peaked in 2007, it has been going steadily down. Now, we are at a point where disposable income is at a 40-year low, and cash deposits are at a record high. Prices are up, but Peter believes greed is no longer winning as it was during the beginning of the pandemic. The great financial crisis completely changed the paradigm around debt forever, shifting the focus to be around coverage rather than LTV.
If you hold long-term unleveraged, gaps in performance are notable but not stagnant. Once you add leverage and shorten the time period, you will see issues arise. Ultimately, time cures a lot of problems. The multifamily housing market has one truly unique advantage, which is Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This sector has more depth and predictability than any other.
Then, they discuss interest rates all across the board. Fixed or float, Peter believes interest rates are unlikely to move drastically as central banks won't raise them on the short end. On the long end, the banks will stop buying at some point, putting less support under the treasury market and driving up intermediate rates slightly. We now live in a world in which you have to pay the government to make sure they give your money back. Next, Willy asks Peter whether he is concerned over the current national debt. His concern lies not within whether the U.S. can afford this but in the question of getting our money is worth in the $5 million owed.
Finally, they discuss the current presidential approval rating, which is right in line with both Clinton and Reagan's approval during their first terms. Peter reiterates that while it will take time, the economy will continue to grow, and redistribution is not growth.
Webcast transcript:
Willy Walker
Thank you, Susan, and welcome everyone to what has become on a quarterly basis, probably one of my most engaging and fun hours on a quarterly basis, to be able to catch up with my friend and incredibly insightful economist and professor Dr. Peter Linneman.
I want to start first by just saying that I hope people realize how insightful Peter has been on the markets as the two of us have talked through the last, we've had six calls, this is our seventh call over the last 18 months. And many people will recall in the spring of 2020, when we were talking about the pandemic, we were still in lockdown. And Peter was one of the first, if not the first person to raise the issue of potential for civil unrest. And I think all of us who listened to that webcast, sort of all of a sudden, were introduced to a different sort of view of what could end up happening as we all know. Very unfortunately, we ended up getting that in the summer of 2020.
I think one of the other things to keep in mind is that when Peter and I spoke in January of this year if you think back to 2020 in the story from a housing standpoint for 2020. All anyone wanted to talk about was single-family housing. Single-family home prices have gone up, single housing starts had gone up, mortgage rates were at historic lows, and all anyone wanted to say was go along single-family. And it was Peter who at that time said it is a golden era for multi-family. There were a lot of people, sort of saying, hold on a second, we thought single-family was the place to be right now, not multi-family. As all of us have seen over the last nine months, Peter saying it is a golden era for multi-family could not have been more accurate and more prescient as it relates to where the markets were going to head in 2021.
So, Peter, your quarterly Linneman letter is as good as ever. I have to tell you it's so good that it ends up taking me more and more time to get through it on a quarterly basis, which isn't all bad except for the people who were traveling with me this week, is every time we hop on some plane. I would just go into my corner and sit there and start devouring the Linneman Letter.
But if I had to summarize the current edition, I would say your general theme is buy assets, finance them cheaply, fixed or float doesn't really make a difference. Don't worry about inflation, don't worry about interest rates. Cap rates will compress from here. Just keep buying and specifically buying multi and industrial. What did I miss?
Peter Linneman
You pretty much got it that the good times are going to get it even better as hopefully Delta gets farther in the rear-view mirror.
Willy Walker
One of the things that you talked about last time was the September 6th date, where the federal step up in unemployment benefits was going to burn off. And that was going to have a big impact on the labor markets. Is it too early to tell whether that's actually happening?
Peter Linneman
It's a bit early, but the ADP data came out today on employment and guess what? It was a massively better month than the previous two, in spite of September being a fairly hindered month. This is for September, the ADP data, in spite of September being a fairly hindered date by Delta. By that criterion, it's not like Delta was gone, and therefore, September was a lot of jobs because of that. And I think you're going to find it in the data as we get further out. Look, it's real simple. If you pay people a lot of money not to work, there's going to be a lot of people not working. Not everybody, but a lot of people.
It was a well-intended policy. But from March of 2021 until September 6th, basically a few states before that. You made more staying on unemployment than getting off unemployment if you were making $25 an hour or less. Is it a surprise that a fair number of people, probably 3.5 million people stayed on unemployment? If it's only like saying, if you can take depreciation Willy, are you surprised that real estate owners take depreciation. That was what the policy asked them to do, right? It's the same way. When it's gone, people are going to say, gee, honey, I went from making 100 to 130% of what I was making when I worked, when I was on unemployment, to making half that or less. They're going to go back to work. And people make this stupid statement, which is they really don't want to work. I don't know how to break it to you, but probably half of the labor force doesn't want to work. Why do they work? They work because, I don't know, they like to eat, they like to pay their rent, they like to own a car, they like to go to vacations, they like to buy clothes for their kids. That's why they work.
Now that may not be why you work, Willy, but that's why at least half the labor force works.
Willy Walker
So dive into that as it relates to the unemployment figures because you have consistently since the beginning of the pandemic had a higher unemployment figure than the bureau of labor statistics has. And your most recent number has you, I think, 9.8 % actual unemployment, which is about 13.5 million people, which is roughly 8 million more than pre pandemic. Yet, off your data in Q2, GDP surpassed the best GDP pre-pandemic we've ever had almost $22 trillion.
So, my question is, let's take for granted that your unemployment number is spot on. And we're going to see more and more people coming back. But I guess hopefully relevant question is, are we in a new normal as it relates to efficiency that we can generate $22 trillion of GDP with 13 million workers sitting on the sidelines?
Peter Linneman
Answer is no. We are back, as you say, to GDP where it was. However, GDP is about 4% short of where it would have been. Had Covid never reared its ugly head, we'd have grown about 2.5% a year for 18 months, right? So, we're about 4% short. I think what you're going to see in the next year is we're going to have another... This year will be, “the normal 2.5% growth plus making up at least half of that gap” maybe 100% of it.
So, we're going to see GDP grows over the next 12 months, something like 4.5 to 6.5%. And we've got the runway to do it. Come to the jobs in your question, can we do it without jobs? Jobs always lag GDP and recovery. For a very simple reason, employers are hesitant to bring back employees until there's proof that we are really back, right? There's always that case. And the operating model, every recovery, late in every recovery, or late in where we're at is the beatings will continue until morale improves, right?
And so, we try to get more work out of the existing labor force, but you can't do that forever. You can't do that forever. You can do it for six months. You can do it for a year when there's not a lot of alternatives. But eventually, what happens? Every recovery, every recovery is you got to bring back more labor. So, we are 5.5 million jobs short of pre-pandemic out of about 156 million. I'm doing that off top my head. We're about 5.5 million short. Of that 5.5 million, 3.5 million are people who make $25 an hour or less, and didn't come back to work, because they were on unemployment. And it was profitable to do so, but that incentive is gone. By the way, if we had no pandemic, normal job growth, we have all the jobs we have pre-pandemic plus about 2- 2.5 million more.
So, when you look at jobs today, we're going to get in the next six to nine months, the 3.5 million who sat on the sideline coming back. You're going to get the normal expansion of two million from an economy that's just growing for normal. And we're going to make up some of that other gap, simply because you can't just keep beating your employees. You can't. So, I think you're going to see, probably on the order of six million jobs added over the next 12 months. And GDP growing 4.5 to 6.5% is going to be a spectacular year. And as Delta gets farther down, we're going to pick up where we thought we were in June, right? That's going to pick up steam from there.
So, I think we're looking at an extraordinary window of time, hampered by Delta, hampered by we're not as vaccinated as we could be and hampered by when you shut down an economy, right? There's a reason you don't shut down an economy. And one of the things that it doesn't just instantly come back, right? We've talked about this. So, one of the things we're still dealing with is... I'm not saying right or wrong, we shut down huge swaths of the economy for three to six months. Is it surprising that it doesn't just turn on like a wonderful car at that moment? There's a lot of linkages there that have to come back. And it's going to take a year or two more to come back fully.
Willy Walker
So that goes straight to your point on inflation. And inflation being transitory. You can't turn on CNBC and not have someone come on and say that inflation is hitting us left right and center.
I was out in Jackson Hole last week at a conference with a ton of multi-family owner, operators, developers, as I made the point of transitory inflation and said, oh, look at lumber. Lumber went from $500 per thousand board foot up to $1,800 is back off to $650 per thousand board foot. I had three people almost jump out of their seats and say to me, Willy that's the spot price that you can't go buy lumber at that price today. You can't get it. They said we're seeing inflation of 15 to 20% across the board in projects that were building today. So, you have been very sanguine, I would say, on inflationary pressures coming in. I guess the question that I have is, should I be listening to those developers who are actually buying in the market or a bunch of really smart economists sitting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, doing all your research?
Peter Linneman
First of all, developers' historically. I have a lot of friends who are developers, right? You have a lot of friends who are developers. They're not great data analysts. Just as a kind of reminder, great people, great.
Willy Walker
They are my clients; I have to hear everything they say. So, let's just be straight here. You can call it straight. I can't.
Peter Linneman
No. So look, of course, they're living with some of the particular pressures. And it's not surprising that a sector that involved real, a lot of products, right? A lot of products go into a home, a lot of products go into an apartment. It's complicated, and it's the weakest link. That is the one that causes the biggest bottleneck, right? And it's what happens when you shut down an economy. It's why probably we've never shut down even in war times, you never shut down a whole economy before, because it doesn't just come back. It can come back, but it doesn't just come back.
So let me give you my favorite inflation number. My favorite inflation number is that year over year, in July, I believe, inflation was like 5.4%, CPI was 5.4%. 20% of that number was due to used cars.
Now pause and think about that. One item, used cars, 20% of all measured CPI inflation year over year. That can't be normal. That can't be normal. That's abnormal. What was the abnormality? So, what I spend my time doing is when I see abnormal, I go dig around and try to understand why it's abnormal and then untangle if it's transitory or real. So, let's take used cars which is the headline, right? It's all over. Okay, go back to March, April, May, June 2020. And I use this as an example. It's not the only one. How many cars were being rented by the car rental agencies? Want to say zero, right? None. The car rental companies didn't need cars because no one was renting, and they were all going bankrupt. Willy, what advice would you give them on how to raise cash?Sell your fleet, right? So, what did they do? They sold down their fleet to the exact minimum. What happened to the supply of used cars? Skyrocketed.
Now, at the same time, how many people were buying cars? March, April, May last year when you thought the world would come to an end. Not many. So, you had an extraordinary supply and an extraordinarily low demand, and the price plummeted last year. Wasn't a headline because who cared, nobody was buying the cars, right? The car rental companies care because they didn't get as much money as they go.
Now come back to this year. GDP is back. People are renting cars again. People are buying cars again, not only are they buying cars again, they're buying all the cars they would have normally bought this year plus a whole bunch they couldn't buy last year. So, demand is not only back, it's disproportionately high because of the pandemic. How about the supply? What's one of the main sources of supply of used cars in a typical year? Car rental companies constantly dump into that, but they don't have any cars to sell into it because they sold them all in 2020. So, 2021 has an abnormally low supply of used cars and an abnormally high demand. Gee, guess what happened to prices? They went from abnormally low to abnormally high.
Now, do you think that lasts forever? But it could take another year or so for that to find balance, right? And yet, you got chip shortages slowing down the new car market. That's not going to last forever, right? This kind of fundamental you go, I understand abnormal. Twenty percent of all consumer price increase year over year was used cars. By the way, a lot of people didn't even buy a used car. It was irrelevant to it. So, that's why when I look at almost every item in these things, they're transitory. Let me give you one that's not transitory. The general movement of housing in excess of general inflation. That's not transitory. The reason that's not transitory is we have fundamentally under-produced housing over the last 20 years by about 3.5 million single-family units and about half of a million multi-family. That's a fundamental under-supply largely created by NIMBYism, right? Largely. If you've under supplied housing, people really want housing, most people really want to live somewhere. What do you think happens to the price? It rises faster than other things and that is not transitory.
Now, that doesn't mean the increase we saw in the past year won’t moderate, but it's still going to outrun inflation and rents going to outrun inflation. And apartments can do well, at the same time, single-family can do well for the same reason Volkswagen can do well at the same time GM and Ford and Toyota do well, which is the fundamentals of the industry. So that is a fundamental that will continue, not continue at the rate it did in the past year, but the pattern of outstripping and it's done that for a decade.
Willy Walker
So on that, if you think about it from a labor standpoint, if you have 6 to 8 million people joining the labor force, do you think that puts downward pressure on inflation and wages? And actually, you can back up to where we were previously, or have we established a new floor at $15 an hour, which amazon is paying their workers and it's all up from here?
Peter Linneman
Some of both, there will definitely be a stickiness on wages. I mean, if you have got somebody who's done a great job for you, they worked overtime to get, you know, you through the hard time they were loyal. You raise their wage from $15 an hour to $17 or from $12 to $14.
Willy Walker
You're not going back.
Peter Linneman
You can't say to that person, “Thank you very much. And I'm cutting you $2 an hour.” You'll get crucified, not to mention you don't want to live your life that way.
So, I think there will be some stickiness, and that'll be a little drag on the economy that kind of stickiness, right? It'll get passed through by and large in higher prices. But at the same time, it will create “inflation” because inflation is the change, right? That change has already occurred, right? So, the change from $12 to $14 already occurred. To have the inflation that continued. I'd have to do it next year from $14 to $16, and the year after that, from $16 to $18.5. That's inflation. But I do think there's stickiness that will somewhat reestablish higher norms and will be a bit of a drag.
Willy Walker
So when we're talking about housing, you were just talking about, if you will, factors that are transitory and those that are not. And your projections are that we deliver 1.1 million single-family homes in 2021.
On the multi-family side, I think it's a little bit over 500,000 units for 2021 and then, on single, you've got 1.2, 1.4 in ‘22 and ‘23. On the multi side, you're saying we're reverting back to something closer to the last 20-year average, which has been like 365,000 units. I think you have a projected something closer to 450,000 units. I guess the question there, Peter, is this: You also state that we have basically no population growth in the United States right now, where it like 0.2% population growth. Yet you're holding firm that we are under-supplied in housing by over three million units on single-family in about 3/4 to 1 million units on multi-family. But we don't have any population growth. Where is that needed supply going if we don't have population growth?
Peter Linneman
So, we've got three things. I think the population growth will end up being more like, 60 to 70 basis points. I don't think we go back to the 100-basis point growth that we had 10 years ago. But it's probably more like 60 to 70. That's a lot of bodies. That's a lot of units. But nonetheless. Secondly, we have a lot of people living with their parents. And some of them like it, but some of them don't. When I say some of them, I'm actually referring to the parents. I'm not referring to the kids. They're going to make it miserable. Some of those are going to come out. You have more doubling up of not just young people. You have more doubling up than people realize.
And that's this fundamental...And by the way, I think you had Ivy Zelman on a couple of weeks ago. She has, by the way, I think her number on...
Willy Walker
Peter, you there? We got freeze on Peter. Hang with us for a second. Hopefully Peter comes back online. Got a good shot of Peter frozen right now with his canaries behind him. And...Susan, I'm hoping you're still hearing me.
Susan Weber
I am. You're fine. It's Peter.
Willy Walker
Alright? We're just getting into the good stuff. Hang with this for a second here, folks.
Susan Weber
He's rejoining.
Willy Walker
He's back in.
Peter Linneman
I'm just back in, I just bounced out and came back in, Willy sorry.
Willy Walker
You were right going into Ivy's numbers as it relates to population growth in... Her saying that actually were oversupplied in single by about 20%, were oversupplied in multi by about 10%. So, you were about to -- if you will take the other side of that.
So where were you going on that?
Peter Linneman
Yeah, I think the truth of it is, come on... We were producing 600,000 single-family homes on average for a decade. It's just not enough, right? To produce 600,000 homes for a decade, single-family homes for a decade. It's just not enough when you do the math of the population. That's why my numbers are... it goes up. The biggest challenge to my numbers is NIMBYism. It's can you get that many permits in the places that need them? And I'm using NIMBYism as a broad catch all for the difficulty of getting permitted and constructed. There's demand there. By the way, you know how there's demand there? Look at how much people are paying for the privilege to live in a home relative to their income, right? That's quite high.
Willy Walker
So talk for a moment then, as it relates to an undersupply of housing and the affordability, because in the end of the letter, you talk a lot about affordability, Peter.
And you basically say that per the Wells Fargo affordability index, only 58% of the housing stock is affordable to a median income wage earner in the United States. And that the long-term trend, I think, is something about 64, 65%. And we were at a high at 76 or 78% of the housing stock was affordable to a median income wage earner in 2012.
So, we got 44-45% of the population that can't afford a single-family home. That sounds like an incredible opportunity for the rental, both single-family rental as well as apartment rental business, because those people to some degree are trapped being renters.
Peter Linneman
And the real way they are trapped Willy is not even captured by the affordability, which is about monthly payment, which is a challenge, right? They're even more challenged by down payment as home prices keep going up, right? And that home price going up means you're more and more challenged by the down payment. That's a big limitation and that's what makes single-family renter look good. Single-family renter, if you think about it, the landlord fronted the down payment. I mean if you think about it, the deal is, I'll put up the down payment. You give me a private equity return on my down payment money. And you cover the monthly operating costs and a little profit on top of that. That's essentially the economic model, right? People say, I don't want to do that, but I don't have a down payment of my own, but I need a home in a school district, right? That's what's going on. And that's kind of proof that we have a down payment challenge. The down payment challenge, disappeared, not disappeared, alleviated during Covid for the bizarre. We talked about this, right? Which was people did not want to change their lifestyle to accumulate a down payment. But when their lifestyle got changed for them, they found they were saving as much in nine months as they had saved in nine years. Co'z they couldn't go out to eat, they couldn't go to ball games, they couldn't go on vacation. They suddenly looked around and said, gee, I've got money for a down payment. You saw that surge. And the other thing is, sadly, a lot of, let's just call them grandparents. I'm 70, so I would be in that category. A lot of grandparents died over the last 18 months; years earlier than they otherwise would have. And it's a tragedy. But it did mean the bequest came years earlier than anybody thought.
Willy Walker
You have a math on that. You have math on that in the letter that is just unbelievable. And you just do back in the envelope math. But it's such an interesting view of you have this cohort die. It moves on, do some back of the envelope about what those people inherited. All of a sudden, they've got the $50,000 for the down payment for the home.
Peter Linneman
It's stunning. I mean the people kind of go, no, no can't be. And I said, wait, just simple. Imagine somebody who's 80, who you thought was going to live to 85 but Covid killed them at 80. They only had $300,000 life savings. That's their 401K, that's their home. That's probably pretty well paid off. So, $300,000 by wealth data is not a big number. By the way, I didn't even say it was everybody who died at 80. And you suddenly say $300,000. And I split it between my two children and my four grandchildren $50,000 each. That's a hell of a down payment suddenly. And I didn't have to wait five more years for it. I'm not saying they're saying yippee, grandma is dead, certainly that's not the spirit of it. But it freed up a lot of money for down payment.
Now, as Covid deaths go down, that gets farther behind us. Although there's still legs there this year and probably for months because of settling up estates. And the bond, the involuntary savings is a bit behind us because people are spending again, right? Retail sales are back to all-time highs. People are traveling again for vacations, though mostly domestically. People are eating out at restaurants again. So, the savings rate has come down. But the death by Covid early still is giving some early bequest. But the affordability is, as you know, a question somebody said to me, is there an affordability problem in the United States? And I said, not in Lima, Ohio. You can, I grew up in Lima, Ohio. Not in Lima, Ohio. I think in Lima, Ohio, you can pick up a 3-bedroom, 3-bath home for like $125,000. You know what the problem is? You have to live in Lima, Ohio.
And so, there isn't an overarching affordability issue. There is a very concentrated affordability issue, not so much in Texas, really a lot in coastal California and the east coast. And that's why I say the shortages are not, are way disproportionately driven by NIMBYism. And NIMBYism is risen everywhere in the United States over the last 20 years. But you know it's risen in some places a lot more than others.
Willy Walker
Yeah, we published an article on it last week saying calling on local jurisdictions across the country that they really have to change the code because it... That's where it starts. The Biden administration can say, let's go do a lot of LIHTC financing and double Fannie and Freddie’s LIHTC investments. It ain't going to change until you get zoning that allows for manufactured housing to actually build new communities. You can't get permitting today to build manufactured housing across the country.
Peter Linneman
And it's even more than that, Willy. Until you get approval times down to, let's say, Dallas'. If you think about Dallas, you know, why do the approval times take so much longer in, name a place, than Dallas? It's not like Dallas is building homes that are unsafe. Dallas has found a way to get homes approved on a timeline. Yet they're still safe and sound homes. If every community in America approved them on that timeline, you'd see a lot more homes built, not to mention the kind of stuff you're talking about, right?
Willy Walker
There are two other pieces on this, and then I want to shift to rates in a second. But as it relates to the savings, and the over depositing, if you will, so you tracked how much sits in the banking system for the last 40 years. And on average, it's been something around $2 to $3 trillion. And we're now sitting at somewhere between $8 and $9 trillion. So, we're over deposited by about $6 trillion. And so, what's the effect of that? Because I think all these banks are actually going to start trying to put that money out, and you go into great depth as it relates to changes that the FED put into place during the pandemic that actually has pulled down reserve requirements. And you're basically saying banks are going to start lending. But I think, potentially, more importantly is the data point you have in the letter that I found fascinating, which is that the U.S. consumer levered him or herself up to about 2006, 2007. And the graph you show is fantastic where it shows from the 1980s to the 1990s to the mid-2000s leverage, as it relates to personal debt versus what I can actually service as an individual peaked in 2007. And since 2007 for the last 13 to 14 years, it's been going steadily down. And we are now at a... if you will, disposable income level where I have income and I'm not paying it all out in debt service that is a 40-year low.
The consumer balance sheet is better than it's been in the last 40 years with an over deposited banking system. Pick up on either one of those.
Peter Linneman
And I'll add one more. If you look at cash deposits, by both individuals and corporations, staggering record highs, staggering record highs. So, think about that you have staggering amounts of record cash by individuals and corporations. You have a low leverage, good coverage by both. You have banks with unprecedented un-lent against reserves. And by the way, you have unprecedented, dry powder in private equity, fair enough? And yet, some people will look at you with a straight base and say, I think things are overpriced because people have lost their minds. And go wait a minute, that makes no sense. When would you expect greed really is winning? You know the battle between greed and fear. So, if you go back to March 2020, late March, early April, fear was winning, right? Fear was winning big.
Now let's talk about today. Prices are up and all that kind of stuff. But greed isn't winning. By the way, this is true for real estate. This is true. How do I know greed is not winning? Greed is not winning because what I'd expect to see if greed was winning is, our cash balances as individuals would be way below normal, because we believe trees grow to the sky. Our corporate cash balances would be way below normal because we’d be investing in everything because we believe trees grow in the sky. Private equity would have well below normal dry powder because they believe trees grow to the sky. And banks would have relatively low reserve availability because they're lending, because they believe trees grow to the sky.
And what my message is to people is in the general battle of fear and greed. We're not in paralyzed fear, like we were in late 2008, early 2009, like we were as the pandemic started. But we're a long way from greed setting in. And that's why I say load up on assets, load up on assets, because sometimes greed is going to really appear. Now before it appears, you could get some panic. But it's going to come back, right? It might go for a little bit, but it's going to come back. So, we haven't even seen greed set in with this amount of money. We've never seen greed with this amount of money.
Willy Walker
You've been very consistent. And for a long time, you've said this that cap rates are not correlated to interest rates, and I want to get the interest rates in a minute before we get there. The Linneman real estate index basically takes a look at capital going to commercial real estate and you have shown time and time again, that a much better determinant of where cap rates are going to go is that real estate index. How much capital debt and equity is going to commercial real estate? And what you're projecting right now is that we're going to see a 2 to 300 basis point increase in that index over the next 3-5 years. And in the process of that, a significant shrinking of cap rates on most specifically multi-family. And you say in that 2 to 300 basis point increase in the Linneman real estate index, you're going to pick up a 10% reduction in multi-family cap rates.
Peter Linneman
Right. Here's the thought experiment. It's not even intellectual. Here's the thought experiment. Okay. And I'll shorten it up. Suppose you knew they'll be twice as much money chasing apartments a year from now, as there is today. Are we going to have twice as many apartments a year from now as we do today? No, we'll have 1.5% more apartments and twice as much money trying to get to it. What happens to cap rates? They go down. You and I could argue about how much to go down. But you don't have to, by the way, did you ask me what are interest rates? It's not about interests. It's about the weight of the money.
Willy Walker
That's coming next.
Peter Linneman
But by the way, let me do the thought experiment in reverse. And this is what I'm now going to give you is what happened in 2009, early 2009. What if I told you half as much money is going to be chasing real estate a year from now as today, what's going to happen to cap rates? The answer is it’s going to go way up. It's the weight of money. And interest rates are important to your balance sheet. Interest rates are important to your coverage. I increasingly... one of the big changes in my thinking over the last 8, 10 years has been, I no longer think of debt or leverage in terms of LTV, I think of it in terms of coverage.
Willy Walker
we all have. The great financial crisis changed that paradigm, I think, forever. Up until the great financial crisis, we would focus from a lending standpoint on LTV. Great financial crisis said, forget about LTV. It's all coverage, and that's where everyone's been ever since.
Peter Linneman
And by the way, that should be…
Willy Walker
It might… Sorry to jump in… But honestly, you talk in the letter this quarter about the discipline that lenders showed in 2016, 17, 18 when the economy is going well, and they had the ability to put additional leverage in and that real estate lenders didn't do it. I truly believe that what you just pointed out that shift from LTV to debt service coverage is what was one of the main drivers of that discipline.
Peter Linneman
I think you're right. And also, I think slowly, the owner community came to realize I want to be around on the other side of any cycle. And if I don't have coverage, I won't be around. LTV you can work your way through a down, much easier than you can work your way through no coverage. And if I have got coverage, I can find a way to get to the other side.
Willy Walker
That's a perfect segue to my next thing, which is one of the coolest analyses. I don't think to my knowledge you've done this before. But your team took the NAREIT index and looked at it over the last 42 years and tranche it up into 10-year return analysis. And then you did it on a three-year return analysis. And it didn't make any difference what 10 years you held it on. You bought in 41 years ago and sold it 31 years ago. You bought in 40 years ago and sold it 30 years ago. Overall asset classes, you would not have lost money, any time in the last 42 years by holding apartments, industrial, office or retail. When you go to the 3-year hold, though, because those are shorter increments, obviously, there are periods of time where you would have lost money.
I think the highest was office were 15% of those 3-year increments you would have lost money. The lowest is multi-family at 6% of the times, if you'd only hold for 3 years, you would have lost money. But the thing that shocked me here, I love the analysis and anyone who hasn't gotten the Linneman Letter buy it and read this analysis, so good. But what struck me was that it's not going to come as a surprise to anyone that the best performing asset is multi-family. Yet also the one with the highest returns is multi-family. And so, I read that and, I said, why would anyone ever invest in a hotel again? Because it has the highest lost percentage possibility and the lowest returns, whereas multi has the lowest lost percentage and the highest returns.
Peter Linneman
If you hold long term, unleveraged, the gaps and performance are notable, but they're not staggering. It's as you start putting leverage on, and you shorten up the time period that you get a lot of issues arise. And yes, you do better, the best returns are when everything went right and you held for three years, right? The worst returns are when everything went wrong, and you held for three years. The interesting thing, Willy, about the 10 year holds, and this is why the families like the New York families and the DC families and the California families who have, yes, they use leverage but not crazy historically, once they created the wealth.
Time cures a lot of problems, right? Time cures a lot of problems. If you came due with a lot of debt on a three year hold last March, you were screwed, right? Or you can do with a three-year hold in 2009 in the first or second quarter. You were screwed. Even though if you came back five years later, the property is doing terrific. Property is doing terrific, right? And we know people who got squeezed in 2008, 2009, the property three, four years, five years later is doing just fine. That's why the coverage is so important. You want to be able to survive. We've all made real mistakes where we chose a property in the wrong neighborhood or whatever. More typically, what we've done is choose the wrong capital stack and the wrong time frame that accentuated risk that we don't control. And that's why long hold. Now as to why anybody invest in anything but apartments.
I mean every property has its advantages and disadvantages. But the multi-family has one truly unique advantage. And that is Fannie and Freddie. And you could add an FHA instead, but Fannie and Freddie...
And, by the way, if Fannie and Freddie lent in the same way to shopping centers, shopping centers would be a more attractive investment, or hotels would be a more attractive investment, if they did. Why? It just deepens the capital pool. Real estate is about availability of capital and predictability. And multi-family has better depth and predictability of capital than any other sector. And in that sense, it is unambiguously safer.
Willy Walker
And along those lines, I think, this will lead us to the question on rates. It is also increasingly being seen as a proxy for fixed income. You put in this Linneman Letter, all the sovereign rates that people are earning, and almost all, every developed nation has negative real interest rates today on their sovereign debt. But you look at some of the European countries, and you say, I can't remember the specific numbers, but do I want to buy a German bond at 72 basis points of the negative real interest rate? Or do I want to buy a U.S. treasury at 154, 152 or wherever it's trading today? You seem to be saying you can go fixed; you can go float. Rates aren't going to move. Are you...
Peter Linneman
They are not going to move a lot. That's because the weight of money. On the short end, I don't think the FED is going to raise. By the way, not just our FED, central banks, I should say, including our FED. I don't think they're going to raise rates fast on the shortage. They might raise to 50 basis points. They might over two years, they may get it up to 50 basis points. On the long end, at some point, the FED's going to stop QE infinity. They're going to stop buying. That will put a little less support under the treasury market. And that will drive up, intermediate and long rates a bit, right? You just have one less bidder.
However, go back to our, how much personal savings are there, how much corporate saving is there? How much money is out there? That weight of money is going to chase assets and an asset, a major asset is government bonds. So, yes, that money cannot outbid the U.S. government right now, right? The FED. So, the FED disappears, and rates go up 25 basis points. And then that weight of money out there says, “oh at that yield, I'll do it.” So, I think it's maybe a 25 or 50 basis points that if the FED stops buying, but it's not a meltdown. And I don't think we go back to the world I knew, where the real rate was 200, 250 basis points because I don't think we go back to a world that has the amount of money in it, that existed when the real rate was 200 to 225 basis points on a government instrument.
We're now in a world where you have to pay the government for them to make sure you give your money back. Remember when you were a little kid and you watched like a western, and the bank had money in there. And you had actually pay the bank to store your money. Right? And that's what's happened, is just to give safety. You have to pay the bank to hold your money because there's so many people who want that safety. And that's because there's so much money out that some of it want apartments and some of it wants debt, some of it wants, I just want to be able to get it back if I need it. That's going to get rates down, not necessarily down as low as they were, but low in the sense of by any historic standard.
Willy Walker
Does it concern you that our national debt is now almost above GDP 20... It's above $26 trillion, and we're right now running about $22 trillion of GDP. Does that number concern you or, you think, rates...
Peter Linneman
No
Willy Walker
So it doesn't concern you. You were very clear, Peter, at the beginning of the pandemic. Geez, look at the numbers. We can afford $5 trillion of stimulus to be able to get us out of this. And we're going to do that because we're borrowing against future. Today we ought to do it. It's going to save lives; it's going to keep the economy going.
Now we're at this debt ceiling issue. And a lot, I had dinner last night with Senator Bennett and Senator Hickenlooper. The two senators for my great state of Colorado, and there's a lot going on Capitol Hill right now, is it relates to reconciliation bill and also the debt ceiling. Does the debt ceiling concern you at all?
Peter Linneman
No, that's theatre. And there's quite frankly, better theater to watch than that, at least in my humble opinion. It's theater. Do you really think they're going to shut the government down for good? I mean, come on. That's theater, and there'll be a lot of, but it's theater. So, I don't worry about that. By the way, I don't even worry about the other $5 trillion, because everything I said about the last $5 trillion, the math is still the same on the next $5 trillion. So, the $5 trillion of debt per se doesn't worry me.
But if you go back, Willy, when we first talked about CARES I. That's a long time ago when we first talked about CARES I. My comment was of course we could afford it, are we getting our monies worth? I think with CARES I we definitely did. With CARES II we mostly did. And since then, we're not getting a lot for our money. And we can afford anything we get our money's worth on. We can't afford anything we don't get our money's worth on. Even if "we can afford it" we can't afford to just squander resources.
And so, my concern about the current $5 trillion, they're calling it $3.5 trillion, but it's really $5, is we're not going to get our money's worth. We're going to get some number like, I don't know, for $5 trillion in cost, we're going to get $3 trillion in value. That's a negative arbitrage of $2 trillion. That's 10% of GDP. And OK, it's spread over 10 years or 12 years, but it's a negative arbitrage, right? We're squandering resources.
But we're not going to do everything stupid. We're just going to do a lot. So, what worries me is not the number, but rather, we aren't getting our money's worth. And by the way, that worries you, you could say I can afford a car. Suppose you want to go buy a car and you say, well I can afford the sticker, but am I getting my money's worth? Am I getting my money's worth is the determinant? We can afford it.
Willy Walker
I want to be real clear with people who may not read the Linneman Letter. When you read it, you will clearly see that Peter is not agnostic on tax rates. He is a libertarian. He does not think the tax rates ought to move by as up as much as they are projected to move up, hopefully at something inside of that. But on that same theme, one point. And then I'm going to ask you a question. You also show the Gallup poll of Presidential Approval Ratings. And while everyone thinks that Joe Biden and the Biden Administration right now are doing everything wrong, and after the exit from Afghanistan, et cetera, you point out in the letter that Biden's approval ratings sit right on top of Bill Clinton's and Ronald Reagan's at the same time in their first terms.
So, before everyone, I'm not saying whether you should write off the Biden Administration or not, I'm just saying there have been some past examples of people sitting right where Biden is who had by all measures very successful presidencies. The question I have for you is this, Peter. We've talked about the credit sign that looks great. You have a canary in the coal mine analysis that you do every single quarter. And if you got five canaries, everything's great. And you go through leverage levels, you go through household net worth, you go through all this stuff, and it's five canaries, five canaries and then behind you right now you have the last scenario.
Peter Linneman
Appreciate my backdrop are my five canaries, right?
Willy Walker
But on one indicator, Covid pushing the economy right back down the tank, you have three canaries dead and only two still alive. That doesn't leave us a lot of margin of error here on this Covid thing.
Peter Linneman
Let me just say one thing, and then I'll come… the one thing on the tax bill or whatever you want to call it, the spending bill. I got somebody asked me the other day. Am I a big fan of the proposal, and I said, just… Come on, I was trained by Milton Friedman. What are the odds that I'm going to like a package designed by Bernie Sanders? It doesn't mean Bernie Sanders is wrong. It's just what are the odds, right?
So, there's that. Second comment I make to people is, don't forget I am 70 years old, and I've rarely seen good economic policy out of Washington, rarely in all the years. I mean sometimes they're dumber, and sometimes they're less dumb, but they're never what I would say, boy, those are brilliant. And yet the economy grows, and yet the economy grows. And it's a testimony to the ingenuity, the creativity, the entrepreneurship is that we grow, anyway.
Yeah, we may grow 20 basis points slower, 10 basis points faster. But that's what I think will happen again. We may grow a little slower, but will grow, because and we always say well, you know, we are going to grow. Remember, most of what DC is about is distribution. Not about efficiency of the economy. They windowed progress as growth. But their first and foremost is about redistributing either from the country to their district or their state, or to their pet projects or their pet philosophies. And redistribution is not growth. It may be wonderful, but it's not growth, right? Because you need a middleman that takes a scrape for redistributing. And unlike you guys who are efficient middlemen, they aren’t real efficient middlemen. Right? So that's the challenge. Now, come to the canaries in Covid.
Willy Walker
So go and I'm one thing, just real quick because, we've got limited time, and I don't want to go too deep on Covid. So, if you can make it real quick, I think your feeling is that Covid, the numbers you just talked to me about beforehand are they're trending well. And you think that you might put a canary back on the…
Peter Linneman
I think I got it. Canary comes alive real quick. Covid cases are down 30 % the last three weeks. That means that based on what we've seen in other countries in about five weeks, we're back to where we were in what May, June. And, when that happens, I think, "we're back to where I started with in terms of the GDP growth and the job growth". And we pick up and hopefully we get more vaccination and we're ready better prepared for the next wave that might hit. So, I feel good, and you could even get, it's not, it's very possible, Willy, by the next time we do one of these, we've got only one dead canary on Covid.
Willy Walker
So, talking about distribution makes me think about the cities across the country that you all track. So, you track, I think 48 MSAs and put really detailed information on each one of them in the Linneman report. I was shocked at the 48 MSA you track, there is only one MSA that is higher unemployment today than it was pre-Covid and that is Salt Lake City. That shocked me. I have seen so much activity in Nashville and everywhere and the only one that has more employment today than it did pre-Covid is the Salt Lake City and everything else is on a negative all the way down to economies like LA and New York that are still way down there, but you segment it out to very hot, hot, doing well and cold as a turkey, and it's a fantastic analysis there. Just what's your take as it relates to job growth across the country? And what you're looking at? Because one of the things in your hot group, Peter, your very hot group, I was very surprised. There weren't many smile cities in there. I call smile cities, the ones you put in Seattle, Washington. You draw a smile across the United States up to Boston, Massachusetts. You don't want to invest north of it. You do want to invest south of it. And there were very few of your very hot cities that were below that smile line.
Peter Linneman
So I think what you're going to get six months from now, when we do this, is a lot more of the smile cities are going to be in there. That's because New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, really hit hard by Covid and the restrictions that they placed on themselves during Covid.
And I think given six more months, you'll see them coming off of the bottom more. And more normalcy. They're going to catch up a bit, right? They're going to, they've been disproportionately hurt. They're going to disproportionately recover not overnight. It's going to take some time, but six months from now, by the way, that doesn't mean Salt Lake doesn't do well. It doesn't mean Nashville doesn't do well. They will. Those are fundamental growth places they have been and will continue to be.
But the recovery, those 3.5 million people are disproportionately in New York and Philadelphia and, Los Angeles, and so forth. The missing 5.5 are disproportionately there and as recovery occurs, that's where they'll be. So, I think we get back to something more recognizable. And I would think six months from now, you'll have another six to eight major markets joining Salt Lake as having higher employment than they did pre-Covid.
Willy Walker
So that leads well into my last question to you because I got about 15 more pages of notes to go through with you. But I'm going to run out of time today as I always do.
Back to office, as you well know, I was very much proponent of back to office, had everyone at Walker & Dunlop keyed up on coming back into the office on September 7th. The Delta variant hit, and we sort of put a pause button on it. And over the last month, I have talked to lots of other CEOs who sort of have been revising their view. Do I really need to get everyone back into the office? In the Linneman Letter you point out that people are about 20 to 40% less productive in work from home than they are at the office. I would say that is actually very different from your former Wharton colleague, Adam Grant, who says that they did meta studies of pre-pandemic, flexible work schedules, and the people who had flexibility for two to three days a week were more pleased at their job and were more productive than the people who went to the office every single day. But it feels like we're in no man's land right now, Peter. And I guess the question I'd say for you is this: would you rather invest today in Boston Properties or WeWork given going back to a physical office that Boston Property owns or flex office space that WeWork will own?
Peter Linneman
Given those two, I go with Boston Properties. No offense to Sandeep, but I think he'll do fine. But given those choice, I'd go with Owen Thomas. Let me put my summary statement.
Willy Walker
Go ahead, keep going.
Peter Linneman
No, my summary statement on back to the office is, never forget that one of the most popular British television series of all time and one of the most popular U.S. television series of all time was The Office. The Office was premised around this wink and a nod that all of us recognized that even when people were in the office, they screwed off about 90% of the time.
And we all knew there was an element Ricky Gervais captured it to an extreme as only a gifted comedian could. But if you think they screw off at the office, do I need to finish the rest of the sentence?
Willy Walker
You don't, but I would also say to you that the number one selling film of all times is also Star Wars. And that doesn't mean that all of us get to go to space.
Peter Linneman
Well, done. Touché You get the last word there.
Willy Walker
As I said, we could keep going for hours. We were out of time for today. This is super fun to anyone who hasn't read it. Get a copy of the Linneman report. And I'll send out some show notes on it as well as some of the points that Peter and I have talked about. But Peter, great to see you. Enjoy Germany, have a great time over in Europe.
And we will see everyone next week for Richard Tedlow, Harvard Business School professor, on his new book, Charismatic Leadership, which should be fantastic.
We will see Peter back here at the end of this coming quarter. Peter, thanks again. It's always great.
Peter Linneman
My pleasure. Thank you for having me.
Willy Walker
Take care.
Related Walker Webcasts
Shaping the Future of Housing with Ryan Marshall
Learn More
November 13, 2024
Real Estate
Redefining Real Estate in the Digital Age with Marc Ganzi
Learn More
October 16, 2024
Real Estate
A Bet on the Fed with Dr. Peter Linneman
Learn More
October 2, 2024
Real Estate
Insights
Check out the latest relevant content from W&D
News & Events
Find out what we're doing by regulary visiting our News & Events pages