[cuuupid]

It's not necessarily prices falling here but the profitability of [demand] at [price]. Like if prices fall 10% but demand rises 20%, you would want to build more housing.

This is the beauty of the free market because it guarantees three things:

[1] Real estate is generally a good investment and will hold value or appreciate in the long term, because supply will adjust to demand shocks to rescue values

[2] If people want to live somewhere, houses will be built for them to live there

[3] Real estate developers and construction are solid, safe businesses with great unit economics because building may decrease prices, but may still increase demand

It's when you constrain and restrict a market that players have to adjust and then you get crazy scenarios

[estearum]

> Like if prices fall 10% but demand rises 20%

Not as a developer you wouldn't...

You already have razor thin margins. Prices going down 10% means you cannot get financing for your project.

Holding real estate is generally a good investment. Developing real estate actually is not.

> Real estate developers and construction are solid, safe businesses with great unit economics

No they are not lol

[cuuupid]

If you live in a magical fairy world where supply and demand are fixed, sure. In the real world, prices going down 10% leads to a surge in demand, and so you can fill more of your units. This leads to either equal or increased revenue, for the same construction (flat cost), which actually yields higher margins. This is why developers are usually concerned with occupancy rates, and prices are more a concern for homeowners.

There are only really 3 scenarios where prices are low and demand is low:

[1] There is a dramatic surplus of supply, in which case if a developer is trying to build they've not done research and probably should not get financing

[2] There is some other factor (usually high crime) in which case again, developer should do their research, and the market is operating fine

[3] You are developing super early and operating within incentives offered by the city, usually tax abatements, which drive down the carrying cost and make it a better investment.

Also important to note that in scenario [3] a smart developer will slowly release inventory to restrict supply to meet demand, and as demand grows, release more inventory at the newly raised price, continuing to do so as long as the tax abatements advantage the strategy. This is common in successfully developed areas e.g. Jersey City, and is fine as long as broad scale collusion doesn't occur

[bpt3]

Can you define razor thin? Grocery stores have very small margins, as little as 1%.

Homebuilders make at least an order of magnitude more on a very expensive item.

[eigen]

> Grocery stores have very small margins, as little as 1%.

Looking at the Kroger 2024 Annual report shows that they have 22.3% gross margin . they pay dividends, had a stock buy back, etc so its entirely possible that they had a very low margin but gross margin seems to be similar to a home builder.

Sales $ 147,123

Merchandise costs $113,720

Rent, Depreciation, Amortization $655

Gross profit $32,748

for a gross margin of 32.7/147 = 22%

[ghufran_syed]

The net margin of around 1.5% seems more relevant: the gross margin is just the revenue minus the cost of good sold plus cost of transportation. The net margin is the money you have left after paying things like Rent, employee wages, electricity, taxes, interest on debt.

[estearum]

Grocery stores don't require millions to billions of dollars of capital to execute each new transaction.

So it's not the margin itself but actually the spread between the margin and what investors could get by investing in alternatives. Real estate investment opportunities are often measured by their advantage (measured in fractions of a percentage, .2% advantage being considered solid) over 10 Year Treasuries or S&P 500 returns.

Real estate developers do often actually lose money, but the more salient boundary condition is whether they can get financing for a project, where they have to clear a bar well above the "just make >$0" bar.

[bpt3]

> Grocery stores don't require millions to billions of dollars of capital to execute each new transaction.

Neither do homebuilders, because homes don't cost millions to billions to build (high end custom homes can cost millions, but that's not what we're talking about here).

> So it's not the margin itself but actually the spread between the margin and what investors could get by investing in alternatives. Real estate investment opportunities are often measured by their advantage (measured in fractions of a percentage, .2% advantage being considered solid) over 10 Year Treasuries or S&P 500 returns.

Okay? So they have an advantage over alternatives, which means higher profits. And a .2% advantage is not considered solid, or meaningful in any way without a lot of missing context.

> Real estate developers do often actually lose money, but the more salient boundary condition is whether they can get financing for a project, where they have to clear a bar well above the "just make >$0" bar.

Many companies often lose money, due to incompetence or bad luck. The industry as a whole has very healthy margins.

[estearum]

Even a small (~10 home) development, of which we need hundreds of thousands, will require millions in financing. And as the development gets smaller and requires less financing, the economics get a bit worse due to ~fixed cost of land acquisition, development, and infrastructure/utilities.

> Many companies often lose money, due to incompetence or bad luck

One of those signs of incompetence or bad luck is building a bunch of new supply into a market with falling prices, in which case you will find yourself not among those with healthy margins ;)

[bsder]

> [1] Real estate is generally a good investment and will hold value or appreciate in the long term, because supply will adjust to demand shocks to rescue values

Real estate is NOT supposed to be a good "investment" and only became so because the government started propping it up with bank bankstops, zoning, NIMBY, redlining, etc. If your pricing is working correctly, real-estate should be close to zero-sum.

Austin, in particular, had several nasty bust cycles where real estate prices tanked after overbuilding which is precisely what kept the cost of living under control. Alas, that is a thing of the past after 2008 when everybody realized that the federal government will backstop the banks "Real estate number must always go up! Brrrrr!"

[cuuupid]

For nearly every homebuyer, a home is the largest purchase they will ever make and the bulk of their net worth. It needs to be a good long term investment that at least reasonably paces with inflation, otherwise you are losing money by buying a home and everyone has to rent and then you have feudalism with extra steps.

The good news is this is totally fine with keeping cost of living under control and overbuilding, because prices will go back up over time. Most people aren't going to own their home until the 30 year mark so it really is a much, much longer term investment than anything like overbuilding or other factors can reasonably affect.

The problem is really that people started seeing 2x-10x returns on homes and started treating that like the norm. That is not a 'good investment' that is a 'money printer,' and in most cases the government does not want to safeguard that behavior, but it's hard not to when those same people panic like crazy if their home only goes up 2% in value in a year or, god forbid, decreases in value for a year.

There is really no good solution to that mentality, if there really was one then Wall Street would have uncovered it ages ago to get more people into long term ETFs.

[marcuskane2]

> a home is the largest purchase they will ever make and the bulk of their net worth

That's bad and a central part of the problem.

I accept that my car is depreciating in value every year I own it, and but I need a car so I buy one. I don't need it to be a good long term investment, despite it being a major purchase.

The entire mindset of treating a family's home as being an investment class rival to bonds and equities is a relatively new phenomenon, and one that's clearly been detrimental to many.

[jjav]

> > a home is the largest purchase they will ever make and the bulk of their net worth

> That's bad and a central part of the problem.

Why? Or to ask in a different way, how could it not be?

For nearly all regular working people, there is nothing they will ever buy that costs more in labor and materials than a home. So of course it will be the most expensive purchase most people ever make. How could it not be?

[cuuupid]

A home costs 10-20x more than a car, you are being incredibly disingenuous by boiling them both down to “major purchase.”

[bsder]

> It needs to be a good long term investment

No, it needs to be roughly zero sum but only over very long timescales. Anything else is a disaster.

If housing is a "good investment", it attracts rampant speculation and concentration of ownership to the capital class. You need regular wipeouts to force the speculators out of the market (doubly so if they are buying on leverage).

If housing is a "bad investment", people abandon the real estate and you get blight which becomes a self-perpetuating cycle downward.

Things need to be kept balanced in housing so that people can use it to be a place to live. We are currently in the middle of seeing the dysfunction that happens when being "shelter" is overshadowed by being an "investment".

[komali2]

It seems to me that the market will select for urban sprawl though which is a negative for society but has the highest margin. E.g. Houston suburbs, miles and miles of cheap to fab single family homes that turn it into a suburban hell scape where you have to drive everywhere.

I don't think the free market is giving the promises you say it is - supply isn't elastic for real estate if nobody's building because there's no margins. Demand can be anywhere really.

I like to look to Tokyo for an example. Small lots, extremely predictable regulations (that are still strict enough to ensure a safe living situation), fast approvals, mean it's much faster and easier to throw up an 8-10 story apartment than say downtown Austin, and so even today they keep doing it despite land in Tokyo being very expensive. And, no sprawl.

[seanmcdirmid]

They can throw up 8-10 story apartments in Tokyo despite land being very expensive because they tear them down and rebuild them after 20-30 years. Also, Tokyo outside of a few areas isn't that tall, it is definitely dense, but 3-4 story tall building dense (those homes are also torn down and built anew ever 20-30 years, so construction buzzes in Tokyo).

It would be better if you considered new actual living capacity in Tokyo rather than just new constructions.

[bandofthehawk]

I believe the market in the US selects for urban sprawl because it's usually subsidized by the dense urban core. Suburban areas often don't generate enough tax revenue to support their own infrastructure and services.

[austhrow743]

Why are you accrediting Houston to the free market rather than Tokyo?

[komali2]

Houston doesn't have zoning laws, Tokyo does.

Generally speaking, freer markets seem to lead to worse outcomes overall.

[taormina]

Have you seen Tokyo?

[komali2]

I've lived in Tokyo and Houston. Tokyo is infinitely more livable and the housing is still relatively affordable. In Houston even if you can get a new place it'll be clapboard garbage that's a one and a half hour drive from work.

[hunterpayne]

Average home price in Tokyo is 1.5x that of Houston. Average wage in Houston is 1.5x that of Tokyo. So the data doesn't support your post unless you really really love sushi and arcades.