Tag: International Real Estate Investment

Amid competing to be a top performer in macro real estate markets, there are certain traits that distinguish the good from the great. Many occupiers have been forced to adjust to market demands, specifically – new technology, the battle for talent, and slower economic growth – compelling investors to adjust to meet the needs of their tenants. Huge demand across global markets is the result.

Technology continues to influences our everyday lives more and more whether we are paying attention to it or not. Technology continues to mold the way in which we conduct business. Traditional businesses are having to adapt to the new methods to stay competitive. The ‘how?’, ‘why?’, and ‘where we work’ has been completely deconstructed taking on new meaning. In a recent McKinsey Global Survey, 71% of individuals believed that enhanced digital capabilities increased profitability. On the other hand companies resistant to change may face uncertain futures due to the magnitude of the digital disruption.

The work force has also seen a large disruption due to technology. In a survey of C-suite level executives 90% report that a retention among technology talent is a priority amongst the gamut of business challenges. To expound upon this, in the U.S.A.’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology predicted by 2020 for there to be a shortage of 1 million technical professionals. Therefore, the battle for technical talent will continue to grow, according to statistics.

Recently, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued a global economic forecast called ‘Too slow for too long’. Although the IMF does not seem optimistic, there is always opportunity. Disruption through corporate response combined with slow economic growth is a breeding ground for ideas. On one side, stymied growth has forced businesses to become savvy in reducing operational costs and protecting margins. However, corporate confidence is low and acts as a brake on business investment. Many commentators are referring to this established reality as a ‘new normal’.

Global Cities are seeing increased levels of occupier mobility as disruptions continue and new geography of occupancy emerges. Foreign direct investment (FDI) has been steadily increasing since 2012 and provides strong evidence to support the globalization of occupier activity. As reported by, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), global FDI flows were up 25% year-on-year in 2015 at around $1.7 trillion. Both financial and corporate restructuring contributed to this being the highest volume of flows since the beginnings of the financial crisis in 2006.

The traditional spatially fixed occupier is being questioned and redesigned to accommodate a nomadic type of worker. It is noted in Knight Frank, Global Cities, that “fragmentation of business processes ha[ve] led to the rapid rise of ‘shoring’. . . [and] relocated to locations that have clear labour or cost advantages.” Cities that have benefitted greatly from this are Bucharest, Manila, Shanghai, Warsaw and Bangalore. There is also anticipated growth in Trinidad & Tobago, Kenya and Peru.

Young vagabond workers are seeking a more flexible space in densely populated cities such as Berlin, Austin, London, Seoul, Tel Aviv, and San Francisco. These cities have prospered due to the strong digital demographic. An example of corporate leadership through future foresight can be observed in General Electric’s decision to relocate from Fairfield, Connecticut to Boston, Massachusetts. Their vitality as a company is contingent upon their success in the software innovation and finding tech talent. Another example is Amazon’s decision to move from Slough, in Berkshire to the Shoreditch tech cluster of London. Also noting this shift is Integrale Advisors’ Keith Knutsson, claiming “flexibility is the driving force today for choosing a dream workplace.”

Emerging in the background, there will continue to be an onset of robotics and Artificial Intelligence (AI) that will disrupt current market conditions and create new business processes. As these altering forces take root, new property and location choices will be essential. Dr. Lee Elliott, head of Commercial Research for Knight Frank, said it best, “as many age old businesses will testify, complacency never pays in a disruptive environment.”

According to the National Association of Realtors, for years, the American Dream included a stable job and a comfortable suburban home close to good schools. If all went according to plan, that classic white picket fenced home was a solid investment for years to come; median home values have risen every decade since the first housing census in 1940. This model is changing with today’s generation as outlined by Keith Knutsson of Integrale Advisors.

“Today’s first-time home buyers aren’t following in the steps of their parents and grandparents. The economic and cultural environment looks quite different. Instead of moving to the suburbs, many are remaining in cities where they had been renting. Or they are opting for homes on small lots in planned communities in walking distance of conveniences like restaurants, grocery stores and shared green spaces similar to that of a large city” states Keith Knutsson

“Technology is also altering the real estate landscape” said Keith Knutsson. Today, real estate agents work with buyers who have already studied the marketplace online and expect quick answers, properties that meet a long list of requirements and help with closing transactions. Oftentimes first time home buyers are relying solely on technology to both buy and sell their home.

Shifting economic landscape

Economic changes have majorly transformed the real estate landscape for first-time homebuyers. In 1950, the median single-family home price was $7,354, or $44,600 when adjusted for inflation. Today, according to the National Association of Realtors®, the median home price has mushroomed to $233,900 in 2016, or five times more than what one paid in 1950.

Keith Knutsson stated “Homes were also more affordable for mid-century buyers, not only because they were cheaper in today’s dollars, but also because they were more reasonably priced relative to income. The median home price in 1950 was about two times median household income. Today, it’s four times.”

That’s what Anna, 30, a new home buyer experienced when she and her husband set out to buy their first home.

After renting a one-bedroom apartment in Brooklyn for seven years, the couple, planning to start a family, looked to buy in nearby South Park Slope section of Brooklyn, hoping for a three-bedroom apartment with enough space to grow.

Sticker shock quickly set in when they realized this would cost close to $2 million. While the couple had what Anna described as “healthy” savings, they still needed a loan from their parents to help make up the $800,000 down payment on the $1.8 million three-bedroom condo they bought in May 2016. That family loan took the edge off the mortgage amount and made them more appealing to sellers.

“The process was pretty long and exhausting,” Anna said. After the couple began their search in September 2015, they had two offers fall through thanks to a buyer who offered more cash down and another buyer who offered all cash. They leaned on their real estate agent to help them navigate the tricky closing process that finally got them to their more spacious home.

Demand for conveniences and the urban experience

One reason for the demand Anna experienced is a desire among many first-time homebuyers for urban living. A surge of both renters and buyers in cities across the country is constraining inventory and driving prices up, putting affordable first homes out of reach for many buyers.

What’s driving this trend? Keith Knutsson suggests “A healthy job market—the unemployment rate among those 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree or higher is 2.5 percent, significantly less than the overall rate of 4.6 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There is also the demand for shorter commutes to work and walkability to bars, restaurants and retail.”

“We love not having a car and being able to take the subway everywhere we need to go,” Anna said. “I was not at all interested in moving to an area where I’d have to take a commuter train to work. And South Slope is actually quiet and calm enough that it has sort of a suburban feel while still having all of the conveniences of a city neighborhood.”

That kind of urban/suburban mix is increasingly attractive to first-time homebuyers and repeat buyers alike.

“The country is becoming more urbanized, with a greater share of the population living in Census-defined metro areas,” said Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors®. “That leads to the trend of making homebuying decisions based on commuting patterns, higher land values and the likelihood of not even having a car.”

The changing face of homebuyers

“Demographic shifts are also impacting the current homebuying landscape. While married couples still make up the largest share of buyers at 66 percent, single women are entering the market in greater numbers than before, making up 17 percent of total home purchases—the highest since 2011” states Keith Knutsson.

“About one-third of my buyer clients are single women,” Harrell said. “Women are working and earning more in today’s generation and are waiting longer to marry. They do not need another income to have the means to make their first investment in a home, and they have no qualms about not waiting for marriage before they dig in roots.”

Whereas previous generations of home buyers might have given their real estate agent a short list of desired features, today’s first-time buyers have a more defined sense of what they want, and rely on their agent to help them find a home that meets their unique specifications.

Borrowers now have access to the savings of the entire world if they can show lenders that they can make effective use of their money. It should also mean that lenders can search, on a global level for the opportunities that give them the best return for the risk with which they are most comfortable. The following should benefit both lenders and borrowers.

For borrowers, the cost of a capital loan should be lower than that on offer in smaller domestic markets. On the other hand, creditors’ returns should be far more attractive since they have more options for where to put their money to work. Since the global financial crises, there has been some negativity in the air. This negativity has greatly increased in recent months. Some regulators and financiers moved away from embracing globalization, further claiming that it led to the crisis. However, there is potential for a turnaround; especially if less developed nations and financial markets can improve the way they allocate capital.

Leading up to the crisis, capital inflows and outflows moved in obstructive ways. It transitioned from higher growth emerging markets to slower growth developed markets. Much of these flows went into US Treasuries to strengthen reserves in the aftermath of the 1997-1998 crises.  Those capital flows to the US and to the dollar, the world’s reserve currency, meant that Americans could pay for larger properties with money that was cheaper than it once was. European banks continued to borrow those dollars in wholesale markets rather than relying on deposits to fund their own activities. This resulted in what international bankers are calling “the transatlantic banking glut”.

Globalization, all in all, meant poor capital allocation of debt and a huge accumulation of unsustainable debt. This resulted in a rolling crises as investors sought high returns in short-term securities, whether in emerging markets, the US, or Europe.

Central banks in developed nations responded to the crises by implementing easy monetary policies. Thus, triggering an artificial rise of asset prices, which led to an increase in capital outflows into emerging markets as yields were driven down at home. “The Fed should remember that when it makes monetary policy it should take into consideration the impact on the rest of the world,” stated Gao Xiqing, the former head of the Chinese sovereign wealth fund. A decline in globalization would result in a retreat from the dollar and from the US-centralized global financial system. The U.S. had advocated for policies regarding this that would in effect extend US control beyond its shores, especially as the new administration is attempting to limit terror financing and money laundering. The rules have become so burdensome for foreign banks that some have closed their US branches.

There is no better depiction of US policies putting a strain on the global economy than in recent Federal Reserve Board actions regarding “swap lines.” A swap line is another term for a temporary reciprocal currency arrangement between central banks. The central banks of two nations agree to keep a supply of each country’s currency available to trade to the other central bank at the going exchange rate. The Fed maintains lines with Japan, the Eurozone, the UK, Switzerland and Canada.

As the US steps back, we see an emergence of other developed nations are filling the role. China, the economic powerhouse, is taking a greater role on the global financial stage. The rest of the world is trying to circumvent the uncertainty of central bankers, US regulators, and politicians.

Although large companies will always have access to global markets, cross-border investment has become increasingly more difficult due to protectionist measures. As a result, this is expected to produce a smaller demand for capital intensive goods and services. If companies are forced to look domestically for funding, that could be a good thing if governments are more effective in making sure capital is properly allocated. However, there is currently little evidence this will be the case.

This and other articles originally published on Keith Knutsson’s Blog