No. of Recommendations: 4
While this is not about stocks I hope you tolerate an OT post about an "The Economist" piece about the housing market that very much surprised me:
https://archive.is/mDa1w"The Economist" states reasons why the housing market might have already stabilised, after prices gave in just a little in most countries. I am surprised because I always follow the Economist measure of over-/undervaluation of that market (personal interest; I am a potential house buyer) and that piece is very much in opposition of the previous pieces of the last 2-3 years which stated this:
- In the housing market of most western countries (+Hongkong etc.) prices did rise extremely in the last years, thanks to historically low interest rates and a shift towards assets seen as "safe"
- According to the "The Economist" housing in many countries is heavily overvalued now, bubbles developed which will burst when interest rates rise
- The greatest likelihood of a drastic crash is in Canada, Australia and New Zealand
- As extreme examples "The Economist" named New Zealand because mortgages rates there are usually fixed for 1 year only, contrasting with the US where prices are also very bubbly, but where the likelihood of a crash is far lower as Americans have far longer term fixed mortgages
Now, not long after the last piece explained all of that in great detail, "The Economist" in that newest piece completely turns around and says it might be already over.
I know a little about New Zealand and can only wonder. Prices there came down 10-20% in 2022 --- but that's nothing, as prices doubled in the last 5 years and tripled compared with 15 years ago. That together with as "The Economist" correctly previously stated the fact that Kiwi's usually have mortgages rates fixed for 1 year only made me expecting that starting this or latest next year there must be more and more defaults and dramatic burst of the bubble that built up over at least the last decade.
I am more than baffled by this piece. Any opinions?
