www.transicionestructural.NET es un nuevo foro, que a partir del 25/06/2012 se ha separado de su homónimo .COM. No se compartirán nuevos mensajes o usuarios a partir de dicho día.
0 Usuarios y 47 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
Remote Work Doesn't Seem To Affect Productivity, Fed Study FindsPosted by BeauHD on Thursday January 18, 2024 @07:02PM from the would-you-look-at-that dept.An anonymous reader quotes a report released Tuesday (Jan. 16th) by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco:CitarThe U.S. labor market experienced a massive increase in remote and hybrid work during the COVID-19 pandemic. At its peak, more than 60% of paid workdays were done remotely -- compared with only 5% before the pandemic. As of December 2023, about 30% of paid workdays are still done remotely (Barrero, Bloom, and Davis 2021). Some reports have suggested that teleworking might either boost or harm overall productivity in the economy. And certainly, overall productivity statistics have been volatile. In 2020, U.S. productivity growth surged. This led to optimistic views in the media about the gains from forced digital innovation and the productivity benefits of remote work. However, the surge ended, and productivity growth has retreated to roughly its pre-pandemic trend. Fernald and Li (2022) find from aggregate data that this pattern was largely explained by a predictable cyclical effect from the economy's downturn and recovery. In aggregate data, it thus appears difficult to see a large cumulative effect -- either positive or negative -- from the pandemic so far. But it is possible that aggregate data obscure the effects of teleworking. For example, factors beyond telework could have affected the overall pace of productivity growth. Surveys of businesses have found mixed effects from the pandemic, with many businesses reporting substantial productivity disruptions.In this Economic Letter, we ask whether we can detect the effects of remote work in the productivity performance of different industries. There are large differences across sectors in how easy it is to work off-site. Thus, if remote work boosts productivity in a substantial way, then it should improve productivity performance, especially in those industries where teleworking is easy to arrange and widely adopted, such as professional services, compared with those where tasks need to be performed in person, such as restaurants. After controlling for pre-pandemic trends in industry productivity growth rates, we find little statistical relationship between telework and pandemic productivity performance. We conclude that the shift to remote work, on its own, is unlikely to be a major factor explaining differences across sectors in productivity performance. By extension, despite the important social and cultural effects of increased telework, the shift is unlikely to be a major factor explaining changes in aggregate productivity. [...]The shift to remote and hybrid work has reshaped society in important ways, and these effects are likely to continue to evolve. For example, with less time spent commuting, some people have moved out of cities, and the lines between work and home life have blurred. Despite these noteworthy effects, in this Letter we find little evidence in industry data that the shift to remote and hybrid work has either substantially held back or boosted the rate of productivity growth. Our findings do not rule out possible future changes in productivity growth from the spread of remote work. The economic environment has changed in many ways during and since the pandemic, which could have masked the longer-run effects of teleworking. Continuous innovation is the key to sustained productivity growth. Working remotely could foster innovation through a reduction in communication costs and improved talent allocation across geographic areas. However, working off-site could also hamper innovation by reducing in-person office interactions that foster idea generation and diffusion. The future of work is likely to be a hybrid format that balances the benefits and limitations of remote work.
The U.S. labor market experienced a massive increase in remote and hybrid work during the COVID-19 pandemic. At its peak, more than 60% of paid workdays were done remotely -- compared with only 5% before the pandemic. As of December 2023, about 30% of paid workdays are still done remotely (Barrero, Bloom, and Davis 2021). Some reports have suggested that teleworking might either boost or harm overall productivity in the economy. And certainly, overall productivity statistics have been volatile. In 2020, U.S. productivity growth surged. This led to optimistic views in the media about the gains from forced digital innovation and the productivity benefits of remote work. However, the surge ended, and productivity growth has retreated to roughly its pre-pandemic trend. Fernald and Li (2022) find from aggregate data that this pattern was largely explained by a predictable cyclical effect from the economy's downturn and recovery. In aggregate data, it thus appears difficult to see a large cumulative effect -- either positive or negative -- from the pandemic so far. But it is possible that aggregate data obscure the effects of teleworking. For example, factors beyond telework could have affected the overall pace of productivity growth. Surveys of businesses have found mixed effects from the pandemic, with many businesses reporting substantial productivity disruptions.In this Economic Letter, we ask whether we can detect the effects of remote work in the productivity performance of different industries. There are large differences across sectors in how easy it is to work off-site. Thus, if remote work boosts productivity in a substantial way, then it should improve productivity performance, especially in those industries where teleworking is easy to arrange and widely adopted, such as professional services, compared with those where tasks need to be performed in person, such as restaurants. After controlling for pre-pandemic trends in industry productivity growth rates, we find little statistical relationship between telework and pandemic productivity performance. We conclude that the shift to remote work, on its own, is unlikely to be a major factor explaining differences across sectors in productivity performance. By extension, despite the important social and cultural effects of increased telework, the shift is unlikely to be a major factor explaining changes in aggregate productivity. [...]The shift to remote and hybrid work has reshaped society in important ways, and these effects are likely to continue to evolve. For example, with less time spent commuting, some people have moved out of cities, and the lines between work and home life have blurred. Despite these noteworthy effects, in this Letter we find little evidence in industry data that the shift to remote and hybrid work has either substantially held back or boosted the rate of productivity growth. Our findings do not rule out possible future changes in productivity growth from the spread of remote work. The economic environment has changed in many ways during and since the pandemic, which could have masked the longer-run effects of teleworking. Continuous innovation is the key to sustained productivity growth. Working remotely could foster innovation through a reduction in communication costs and improved talent allocation across geographic areas. However, working off-site could also hamper innovation by reducing in-person office interactions that foster idea generation and diffusion. The future of work is likely to be a hybrid format that balances the benefits and limitations of remote work.
Private equity predicts deal rebound as sellers capitulate on pricesDavos dealmakers say pressure to return cash to investors will push buyout houses to sell investments despite low valuationsPrivate equity executives are predicting a sharp increase in takeover activity as buyout firms that have held on to investments in the hope of higher prices finally begin to capitulate.There has been a marked drop in private equity groups selling portfolio companies since a peak in 2021, as rising interest rates have made financing more difficult and hurt valuations.Investors in buyout funds have begun to increase pressure on groups to sell long-held investments and start returning cash, however, forcing them to reckon with lower prices and lock in returns.“Sellers have conceded to lower valuations and the pressure to meet a certain return on investment is ticking,” Pete Stavros, co-head of global private equity at KKR, told the Financial Times at the World Economic Forum in Davos.Firms entered the new year sitting on a record $2.8tn in investments, creating what consultancy Bain & Co last year called “a towering backlog” of potential sales. Many private equity investors have begun to demand cash returns before they commit to new funds, increasing the urgency of asset sales.“For the last 24 months, there has been a disconnect on valuation expectation between buyers and sellers. There is now a real sense of pragmatism setting in,” said Anna Skoglund, who leads the European financial and strategic investors group at Goldman Sachs.Last year, Veritas Capital, the private equity owner of healthcare software company Cotiviti, agreed to sell a 50 per cent stake to Carlyle in a deal that valued the business at up to $13bn before the transaction collapsed. In December, the FT reported KKR was now in talks at an $11bn valuation.Fundraising data suggests that the money once pouring into the industry has begun to dry up, compounding the problem for firms. The amount raised by private equity funds globally last year fell to a six-year low, according to S&P Global.“For the alternatives business to work properly, there needs to be a flow of money back to [investors] for them to reinvest in the new generation of funds,” Skoglund said.Some groups are sitting on stockpiles of cash after accumulating record amounts of capital they have yet to deploy, however, giving them an opportunity to boost returns through new investments.Buyers were standing ready to strike a flurry of deals as prices began to reflect new realities such as higher financing costs and more uncertain economic conditions, said executives at some of the industry’s largest groups.“This is a good time to lean in,” said Scott Nuttall, co-chief executive of KKR said. “There is less competition for deals and multiples have come down.”Nuttall and other industry leaders expect funds that are just beginning to make new investments will be beneficiaries. “It is in periods like this where we have historically earned our highest returns,” said Nuttall.Dealmakers forecast that asset sales between private equity groups will rebound particularly strongly. In recent years such transactions have accounted for about half of overall takeover activity, but “sponsor-to-sponsor” deals in the US dropped to their lowest level in a decade last year, according to data provider PitchBook.“There will be portfolios that are more challenged and you will have private equity firms in decent shape ready to make bids for some of those assets,” said Rob Lucas, a managing partner of CVC Capital Partners.
Ufff, qué peligro, dejar que la gente vea durante unos meses lo bonita que sería la vida si no estuvieran permanentemente jodiéndote desde lo alto de todas las instituciones.Yo creo tiene más miedo de que los jodidos se den cuenta de lo que les estaban haciendo que de que los "jodedores" se cabreen porque se termina la historieta.
INFORME DE LA FUNDACIÓN BBVA E IVIELa productividad de la economía vuelve a niveles del siglo pasadoLa economía no consigue superar un problema estructural. Hay que remontarse a finales del siglo pasado para encontrar unos niveles de productividad inferiores a los actuales. Lo dice un informe de la Fundación BBVA y el IVIEVuelve uno de los viejos fantasmas de la economía española: los pobres avances en productividad. Un informe elaborado por los economistas de la Fundación BBVA y el IVIE revela que desde que comenzó el siglo la productividad de la economía española —medida por la utilización del trabajo y del capital disponible— ha retrocedido un 7,3%. La noticia buena es que desde 2019 se observa una ligera remontada, con un crecimiento del 1,2%, pero aun así insuficiente para converger con Europa.La consecuencia, como sostiene el informe, es que se resiente el crecimiento del producto interior bruto (PIB) y, por lo tanto, su distribución per cápita, lo que explica, entre otras razones, que España se haya alejado desde hace dos décadas de los niveles de riqueza relativa de Europa. De hecho, el pobre comportamiento de la productividad está detrás de que la distancia entre España y el conjunto de la UE en renta por habitante haya pasado del 2,4% en el año 2000 al 14,4% en 2022. Entre otras razones, porque en ese periodo la población ha crecido de forma intensa. Nada menos que un 18,1% entre 1995 y 2022.Lo que han detectado los analistas de ambas instituciones es que mientras la productividad por hora trabajada avanza débilmente, apenas un 0,2% durante las últimas dos décadas, la productividad del capital acumulado retrocede un 1,2%. En ello, todavía pesan de forma relevante las heridas que dejó el estallido de la burbuja inmobiliaria. Los autores del estudio hablan, incluso, de que habría que retroceder a los años setenta y ochenta —los de las crisis energéticas y la transición política— para encontrar resultados tan malos. "Por consiguiente", sostienen, "no debería sorprender" que su impacto no solo sea económico, sino también político y social. No solo ha sido un problema de mala utilización del capital, es decir, de las inversiones, también del factor trabajo, que es la otra variable fundamental para explicar los avances en productividad. Y lo que refleja el estudio es que en el conjunto del periodo analizado (1995-2022) la productividad por empleado aumentó un 8,7%, mientras que la productividad por hora trabajada creció un 14,3%, lo que indica que el número medio de horas trabajadas se ha reducido un 5,6%.Cambio de signo insuficienteLo más preocupante, sin embargo, es la evolución de la productividad del capital, con tasas de variación claramente negativas. Tras unos primeros años en los que se mantuvo estable, recuerda el estudio, desde principios de este siglo presenta descensos muy pronunciados, hasta el año 2013, al comienzo de la recuperación. Esa tendencia cambia de signo a partir de 2014 y las tasas de variación de la productividad del capital son positivas entre ese año y 2022, con la única excepción de 2020, el año de la pandemia, en el que la utilización de la capacidad productiva resultó fuertemente mermada.Pese a esa recuperación, lo cierto es que los actuales niveles de productividad del capital siguen estando muy por debajo de los de finales del siglo XX, lo que plantea una pregunta a los autores del estudio: ¿en qué medida se debe la caída de la productividad del capital a que el progreso técnico induce una sustitución de trabajo por capital en los procesos productivos para ganar en eficiencia y en cuánto se debe a que se invierte en activos que se consideran rentables a corto plazo, pero que generan capacidad que no es plenamente utilizada, porque los bienes y servicios producidos no son absorbidos por la demanda?Este es el caso de la enorme inversión que se hizo durante los primeros años del siglo en actividades inmobiliarias y de construcción. Muchas de esas inversiones acabaron sin venderse, con obras paralizadas y sin futuro, que 15 años después siguen sin venderse. No es de extrañar, por eso, que uno de los sectores que más han contribuido a los malos datos en productividad (junto a la hostelería) sea la construcción, que llegó a representar en los años de la burbuja más del 10% del PIB. Estos dos sectores registran caídas anuales superiores al 2%. Otros tres también presentan variaciones negativas de la PTF (suministro de energía eléctrica y gas, actividades profesionales, científicas y técnicas y transporte) que superan el -1%.En este grupo de actividades que destacan por su negativa evolución se combinan algunas que han experimentado una negativa evolución de la demanda (construcción, hostelería) con otras con importantes tasas de crecimiento del VAB (valor añadido bruto) que van acompañadas de intensos aumentos del capital y/o del trabajo (energía, actividades profesionales, científicas y técnicas, transporte).Los excesos de capacidad, continúa el informe, también se acumularon en otras actividades, aunque en menor medida —industrias extractivas, actividades financieras y de seguros, alimentación, bebidas y tabaco, suministro de agua y saneamiento o industria química—, y se revelaron ineficientes cuando se produjo la caída de la demanda a causa de la crisis.Un indicador de eficienciaHay que tener en cuenta que la llamada PTF (productividad total de los factores) es la suma ponderada (en función de su peso en la renta nacional) de la productividad del trabajo y del capital, lo que hace que se trate de un indicador de la eficiencia conjunta de los recursos disponibles. Las tasas de variación, lógicamente, indican si se logran mejoras de eficiencia o no."Son resultados, obviamente, preocupantes" dice el estudio, "porque indican que la economía española no logra ganancias de productividad total de los factores regulares desde hace más de 25 años". O expresado de otra forma, el crecimiento del PIB desde hace un cuarto de siglo se apoya en el volumen de empleo, mientras que no se aprovecha suficientemente el capital.Los problemas de productividad, sin embargo, no son homogéneos en términos territorialesLos problemas de productividad, sin embargo, no son nada homogéneos en términos territoriales. Dependen, como acredita el trabajo de la Fundación BBVA y el IVIE, del patrón de crecimiento de cada región, y las más castigadas fueron, precisamente, las expuestas a la construcción y la hostelería. Como dicen los autores, los problemas de mejora de la eficiencia que padece España a lo largo de las primeras décadas del siglo XXI los han sufrido la mayoría de las regiones, pero no con la misma intensidad. Los acusan más las comunidades que en los años del boom inmobiliario ya los padecieron, sobre todo las regiones costeras con una fuerte actividad turística, intenso crecimiento demográfico y fuertes inversiones en construcción. También la Comunidad de Madrid.Lo que sucedió al llegar la Gran Recesión es que las caídas de la productividad total se generalizan en el conjunto del territorio porque el retroceso de la demanda afectó a todas las CCAA, al generar automáticamente excesos de capacidad, y eso, lógicamente, es un factor de ineficiencia y, por lo tanto, de menos productividad.En comparación con Europa, la productividad por hora trabajada se sitúa en España a un nivel similar al del conjunto de la EU-27 y del Reino Unido, y algo por debajo del nivel de Italia, sostiene el informe, aunque recientemente empieza a converger con esta economía Sin embargo, la productividad del trabajo de España es muy inferior a la de Francia y Alemania y representa apenas el 50% del nivel de EEUU.
ING Chief to Sell On More Loans to Cut Dependence on RatesING Groep NV Chief Executive Officer Steven van Rijswijk plans to sell on more of the corporate loans the lender underwrites to boost fee revenue and reduce its dependence on traditional savings and loan businesses.The Dutch bank is seeking to cut reliance on net interest income — the difference between what banks pay for deposits and earn on loans — as interest rates appear to have peaked, Van Rijswijk said in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos. In doing so, ING joins a growing number of European banks trying to boost fee and commission income to offset the expected drag from falling rates.“About 80% of our income is interest-linked, which is also for European standards very high,” Van Rijswijk said. “We need to diversify.”Selling portions of loans to investors would allow the bank — which traditionally held much of the debt on its balance sheet — to boost underwriting. The push is part of a broader effort to increase fee and commission income, for instance from payment services and distribution agreements with insurers and asset managers. “ING is traditionally an underwrite-to-hold bank,” he said. “But capital is scarce, capital is expensive. What we can better do is underwrite, hold parts, sell parts, underwrite that money again.”Van Rijswijk said part of ING’s net interest income stands to fall as rates peak. Still, he reiterated that the bank will continue to see a benefit related to a large portfolio of deposits. ING also expected lending to pick up if rates and inflation fall, the CEO said.“Lending can also go up and especially also on the back of perhaps delayed investments that were made also on the sustainability side,” said Van Rijswijk. He cited projects that require large amounts of capital expenditure, such as wind turbines, which became “more difficult” to finance with higher rates.“We are a bit in a twilight zone,” he said. The economy avoided a real recession yet still faces uncertainty such as the conflict in the Red Sea.“That is not a good environment for investments and therefore we need to see what the first quarter really brings,” the CEO said.
US home sales see worst year since 1995Home sales in the US sank to the lowest in nearly 30 years, as a sharp rise in interest rates increased costs for buyers and persuaded many potential sellers with lower rates to stay put.Just 4.09 million homes were purchased, the fewest since 1995, as tight supply pushed prices to a new record, the National Association of Realtors said.The organisation said it expected the market to improve in 2024. But it warned that affordability would remain an issue.The median sale price in 2023 climbed 1% over the year, to $389,800 (£307,625), according to the NAR, which publishes the widely tracked report on sales of existing homes, which account for the bulk of purchases in the US.The median price has jumped more than 40% since 2019, after a surge in prices during the pandemic.Lawrence Yun, economist at the NAR, said the recent price rises were "unsustainable" and that boosting supply to create a path towards homeownership for renters was "essential"."If price increases continue at the current pace, the country could accelerate into haves and have-nots," he warned.The housing market in the US has slowed abruptly since 2022, when the Federal Reserve started raising interest rates in a bid to curb inflation.Last year, US mortgage rates, which are typically fixed for a 30-year period, shot above 7% for the first time in decades.The moves ended a buying frenzy that had erupted during the pandemic, when the central bank had slashed rates to boost the economy.Unlike in other countries, where loans with shorter terms or variable rates are more common, it has also created a stark divide between would-be buyers and existing homeowners, many of whom have loans with rates below 4% and would face sharply higher costs to move.Mr Yun said he thought that December would mark the bottom of the market, noting that mortgage rates have dropped back in recent months, falling to 6.6% this week, the lowest level since May.The declines come as investors bet the central bank will start reversing course and cut rates later this year.But Nancy Vanden Houten, lead US economist for Oxford Economics, said while that may help demand, rates are likely to remain above 6% - not enough to bring a substantial number of sellers into the market."We expect a scarce supply of existing homes for sale to keep home price growth positive this year," she said.
The Economy Is Starting to Look Normal—Housing Isn’tIf you haven’t tried to buy a home lately, the U.S. economy is starting to look kind of, sort of normal. But the housing market is still a mess, and it looks as if it will be that way for a long time.When the Commerce Department reports fourth-quarter gross domestic product next Thursday, it looks as if it will show the economy grew at close to a 2% annual rate from the third quarter. That would put GDP about 2.8% above its year earlier level, matching the annual pace it experienced during the three years before the pandemic.Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation has been cooling. December figures from the Commerce Department, set for release next Friday, will likely show consumer prices rose at around a 2% annual rate over the six months ended December—right around the central bank’s 2% target. Core prices, which exclude volatile food and energy categories, probably rose at a somewhat slower pace.Finally, the labor market has been moderating. Both job gains and wage growth, while still looking robust, have slowed. The unemployment rate, at 3.7%, is right at its 2019 average.So, normal as can be. There is, of course, no guarantee that the economy will look that way six months from now. Still, a lot of the distortions that came in the wake of the pandemic—a massive reshuffling of the job market, hefty government relief, huge savings stockpiles, soaring demand for goods, supply-chain distortions and skyrocketing inflation—look to have been largely wrung out.Except for the housing market. Even with the retreat from the 24-year high set in late October, the average rate on 30-year mortgage, at 6.6% in the latest week according to Freddie Mac, is about 3 percentage points higher than before the pandemic. Prices are much higher too, with the National Association of Realtors on Friday reporting that the median existing, or previously owned, single-family home sold in December fetched $387,000, versus $277,000 in December 2019. Put the two together and affordability is far worse than before.A lot of the problem comes down to supply. With so many homeowners locking in low rates before and during the early part of the pandemic, they are loath to move and sell. Friday’s report showed the fewest existing homes were sold last year since 1995.Supply already was a problem before the pandemic. Following the implosion of the mid-2000s housing bubble, a lot of smaller builders went out of business, while those that remained—and their lenders—became cautious. Nor, with many younger Americans’ finances badly damaged, was there as much demand for starter homes.There is no quick solution here. Even if mortgage rates decline over the next year, they are unlikely to drop so much that they completely reverse the lock-in effect. Home builders are constructing more small homes at lower prices to serve entry-level buyers, and additionally large builders are offering “buydowns” that lower buyers’ mortgage rates. But building more homes isn’t as simple as throwing a switch.Perversely, housing looks as if it could boost economic growth this year. For starters, in 33 of 52 weeks last year the average 30-year mortgage rate was above the current level—so somewhat more existing homes could be sold. Moreover, housing’s effect on GDP largely comes from home building, and activity looks likely to pick up.Wednesday, the National Association of Home Builders said that its measure of builders’ single-family home sales expectations over the next six months rose to its highest level in January since July. The Commerce Department on Thursday reported that construction was started on a seasonally adjusted 1.09 million homes in the fourth quarter—the most since the second quarter of 2022.Just because housing could add to GDP doesn’t mean what is happening with it is good. People unable to move for fear of losing their low rate payments, would-be buyers unable to find a home they can afford—these are problems. Even if the rest of the economy ends up looking healthy this year, housing won’t.
Casi la mitad de las viviendas compradas desde 2008 son de empresas con más de ocho inmueblesDe casi 4 millones de viviendas registradas en los últimos 12 años, 1,7 millones eran altas de empresas multipropietarias.Los pequeños propietarios (personas físicas con menos de dos inmuebles) representaron el 43% de las operaciones.Prácticamente la mitad de las viviendas que se dieron de alta en el catastro entre 2008 y 2020 pertenecían a personas jurídicas (empresas) que tenían a su nombre más de ocho inmuebles, según se desprende de un análisis de los datos de la dirección general del Catastro, dependiente de del Ministerio de Hacienda y Función Pública. En concreto se trata de 1.707.654 inmuebles de uso residencial-vivienda de naturaleza urbana en los últimos 12 años, el 44,8% de todos los inmuebles dados de alta en esta categoría en ese tiempo.Tras las grandes empresas, los pequeños tenedores (personas físicas que solo tienen a su nombre una o dos propiedades) son quienes se llevan la otra gran parte del pastel. El 43% de las altas registradas en el catastro en esos doce años fue de pequeños propietarios que cumplían con esas características, lo que en cifras brutas se tradujo en 1.647.369 viviendas de un total de 3.816.004 registradas entre 2008 y 2020.La cifra de ocho viviendas es relevante, por ejemplo, porque las entidades dedicadas al arrendamiento disfrutan de un régimen especial en el impuesto sobre sociedades si poseen ese número de pisos. Siempre que sean personas jurídicas y que tengan ocho o más viviendas en alquiler, estas empresas pueden desgravarse que asciende al 85% de lo que tendrían que pagar por la renta obtenida. La exención asciende al 90% si arrendatario es discapacitado y se han realizado obras e instalaciones de adecuación. La futura Ley de Vivienda reducirá ese beneficio fiscal al 40%.Los datos, por tanto, arrojan que estas empresas con más de ocho propiedades y los pequeños propietarios físicos estuvieron detrás de nueve de cada diez altas (87,8%) en esas fechas. El 12,2% restante corresponden a personas físicas con más de dos bienes (4,1%), a personas jurídicas con menos de ocho bienes (6,4%) y a otras entidades (1,7%).El catastro es un registro administrativo en el que todos los propietarios de inmuebles urbanos, rústicos y especiales están obligador a inscribir sus bienes para que las administraciones públicas tengan conocimiento de ellos y puedan gravarlos con impuestos, el más conocido de todos el Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles (IBI). El alta en el catastro es un trámite obligatorio para cualquier comprador de una vivienda que anteriormente no estuviera registrada en la base de datos de este organismo dependiente de Hacienda. Aunque no da cifras específicas en su estadística, una amplia mayoría de altas que se registran son de inmuebles de nueva construcción que no constaban antes, si bien los datos también incluyen viviendas ya registradas que han sido objeto de grandes reformas, ampliaciones o rehabilitaciones, por lo que no todo es atribuible a viviendas que entran al mercado.El estallido de la 'burbuja' invirtió los papelesLa gran crisis de 2008 tuvo un enorme impacto en el sector de la vivienda en todo el mundo y en especial en España, un golpe que tuvo su eco en los datos del catastro. En 2008 las altas acumuladas en este registro sumaban 776.879, una cifra que cayó en picado los años siguientes hasta tocar suelo con apenas 119.768 en 2017. Aunque desde entonces los datos reflejan una leve recuperación, nunca se han llegado a ver niveles como los de 2008.El estallido de la crisis no solo paró en seco la construcción de vivienda, sino que alteró el reparto del mercado entre pequeños propietarios y grandes empresas. En 2008 el 52% de las altas procedían de empresas con más de ocho propiedades frente al 37% de personas físicas con menos de dos inmuebles a su nombre.Los años siguientes, las grandes firmas fueron perdiendo fuelle hasta ceder su puesto dominante en el mercado en 2012 y tocar suelo en 2015. Ese último año fue en el que menos altas notificadas por parte de esas personas jurídicas se registraron de toda la serie: apenas una de cada cinco, frente al 63,4% de los pequeños propietarios. Desde entonces los grandes tenedores empresas han ido recuperando importancia hasta alcanzar el 37,8% en 2020, eso sí, todavía lejos del 49,1% de cuota las personas físicas con menos de dos inmuebles a su nombre.Desde que hay datos el mercado de la vivienda nueva ha estado protagonizado prácticamente por dos únicos actores: el pequeño particular y la empresa multipropietaria. El pinchazo de la burbuja inmobiliaria en 2008 frenó en seco la entrada de vivienda nueva y cambió las posiciones de un mercado que hasta la crisis habían dominado las empresas con varios inmuebles ya en su haber. Tras la debacle, el pequeño comprador llegó a aportar entonces una de cada seis altas registradas por el catastro, eso sí, de un mercado incomparablemente más pequeño que en los buenos tiempos del boom inmobiliario https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/4848257/0/casi-mitad-viviendas-compradas-2008-empresas-mas-de-ocho-inmuebles/#:~:text=Prácticamente%20la%20mitad%20de%20las,Ministerio%20de%20Hacienda%20y%20Función
2024 will be a 'pivot year' for the housing market: NAHB CEOThe US housing market has hit a turning point as a drop in mortgage rates draws more prospective buyers from the sidelines, according to a trade group representing builders.“We’re heading toward a housing renaissance,” National Association of Home Builders CEO Jim Tobin told Yahoo Finance Live (video above).Tobin's comments came after this week mortgage rates posted their biggest drop since May last year. The average rate for a 30-year loan slid to 6.60% from a peak of nearly 8% in October.“2024 is shaping up to be that pivot year where we leave the doldrums of the post-COVID slowdown, and we really pivot into the next five or six years in the housing market where we're going to see some great growth. We're going to see homebuilders meet that pent-up demand for single family and multifamily housing,” Tobin added.This is good news for potential buyers who have been sitting on the sidelines due to the lack of inventory and higher mortgage rates. Housing sales activity sank to a 30-year low last year as homeowners remained reluctant to sell the homes they’d financed at lower rates.Sales of previously owned homes retreated by 1% in December from the month before to an annualized rate of 3.78 million, the National Association of Realtors said Friday. December’s home sales slumped by 6% compared to last year.“The December figure is likely the low point in this cycle, and expect an uptick in the coming months,” NAR chief economist Lawrence Yun said on a conference call.Yun noted that lockbox activity was up 5% in December compared to last year — signaling more buyer appetite.Lenders are seeing a rise in interest, too. The volume of mortgage applications rose by 10% from the prior week, according to data gathered by the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey for the week ending January 12.While December's atypically warm and dry weather didn't help builders break ground on more new housing units than the month prior, permits for future development rose, posing new signs of life in the market. Authorized residential permits — an indicator of future activity — climbed 1.9% to a rate of 1.495 million units, up from November's revised rate of 1.467 million units."Looking ahead to this year, we don’t think mortgage rates will fall enough to unwind mortgage rate 'lock-in' and cause a meaningful recovery in supply," wrote Thomas Ryan, property economist at Capital Economics. "Against that backdrop, demand will continue to get diverted to new builds, which will also encourage stronger construction activity."Such dynamics have fueled an increase in builders’ confidence. The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index rose 7 points to 44 in January, marking a second consecutive monthly gain.“People are starting to get out of their homes and get into model homes to look at housing, maybe setting themselves up for a spring buying season [and] readying themselves for those lower rates,” Tobin said.One of the biggest advantages for homebuilders has been the lack of supply in the resale market — which sparked more demand for a new home. Total inventory for previously owned homes reached 1 million units at the end of December, and according to NAR’s metrics, that's considered a “tight market.”Builders have also been rolling out aggressive incentives like mortgage rate buydowns — where the builder fronts a portion of the costs — to aid buyers.“Just over the last couple of months, we're down over a full percentage point in mortgage rates and when you couple that with builder incentives, people are actually getting [a rate] below 6%, whether it's [through] mortgage rate buy downs or price cuts,” Tobin said, adding that "in six months we're going to see mortgage rates even lower than we are now."Fannie Mae revised its forecast and is now expecting the 30-year fixed mortgage rate to average at 6.4%, down from the previous outlook of 7.0%, in the first quarter of this year.That still may not be low enough for some buyers, though.“The world is getting ready to realize that we're no longer going to go back to those 3% to 4% mortgage rates. And there does need to be a generational shift here that mortgage rates in the 5% for the long term are still really good low rates for a long-term investment like your home,” Tobin said.
Signa group’s flagship German project falls into bankruptcyCollapsed property empire’s development of Hamburg’s ‘Elbtower’ was once championed by Olaf ScholzThe Signa group’s flagship German development, a 245 metre-high tower in Hamburg championed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz, has gone bankrupt.The city of Hamburg said on Friday that the company responsible for the “Elbtower” had informed it that it had been unable to secure rescue funding and could not meet its liabilities.The project, owned by Signa Prime — one of the three main holding companies at the centre of the collapsed Signa group’s luxury property empire — had a gross development value of €1.4bn, documents seen by the Financial Times show.Signa Prime’s shareholders and creditors are likely to get a fraction of that if anything, highlighting the extent to which the group’s complex, debt-fuelled business model ultimately hinged on over-optimistic valuations and a buoyant commercial property market to support them.The city of Hamburg said it was considering exercising an option granted to it under the terms of the development to buy the property back at less than the value it had sold it to Signa for — €122mn.“The city of Hamburg can now assert its right of repurchase, which is secured by the purchase agreement, as well as the assumption of all planning and construction contracts,” said city development senator Karen Pein.The city is also speaking with private investors, who may still wish to step in to assume Signa’s responsibilities. Among them is logistics billionaire Klaus-Michael Kühne, already a prominent Signa investor.The Elbtower, which is less than half-complete and sits on a prominent-inner city site on the Elbe river, was feted by Scholz during his tenure as mayor of Hamburg.Scholz called the project, which was due to be completed in 2025, “a signal of Hamburg’s ambition”.The chancellor has declined to comment on whether he had met Signa’s swashbuckling founder, Austrian billionaire René Benko, who has gone to ground since Signa’s collapse in the final weeks of 2023.Shareholders and creditors who once flocked to Benko are still struggling to understand what claim on Signa’s assets they might have — a task complicated by the bewildering network of more than 1,000 corporate entities set up by the Austrian.None of the group’s accounts are consolidated and the three principal Innsbruck-based holding companies at the centre of the group all have different administrators.Work on the Elbtower halted more than three months ago when Signa abruptly stopped making wage payments to the tower’s construction company.