{"id":1490,"date":"2016-04-11T23:52:23","date_gmt":"2016-04-12T04:52:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.holypotato.net\/?p=1490"},"modified":"2016-04-11T23:52:23","modified_gmt":"2016-04-12T04:52:23","slug":"conjunction-fallacy-and-real-estate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.holypotato.net\/?p=1490","title":{"rendered":"Conjunction Fallacy and Real Estate"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>There&#8217;s a neat experiment in behavioural economics where people see a scenario that is more specific (and is actually less likely to happen) as being more likely to occur than a general case because it resonates better. The classic example (<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Conjunction_fallacy\">via Wikipedia<\/a>): <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.<br \/>\nWhich is more probable?<br \/>\nLinda is a bank teller.<br \/>\nLinda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The first is more likely &#8212; it&#8217;s less restrictive and completely contains the second. Yet many people will choose the second option because it resonates better, or because it&#8217;s easier to visualize a representative example. Similarly people may pay more for insurance against a specific hazard they can visualize well (like dying in a terrorist attack) than more general insurance that also covers that specific case (dying from any cause). <\/p>\n<p>So the watercooler gossip turned to the housing bubble today. I don&#8217;t usually say much when the conversation turns to real estate, as bearish views are not usually pontificated in polite company. I was especially restrained today, shocked into silence by the <span title=\"Even from RE investors!\">sudden agreement happening<\/span> that all was not sunshine and roses &#8212; that in fact houses and condos were too expensive in the city. <\/p>\n<p>For years I&#8217;ve been trying to say that the wise course is to rent because price-to-rent is out of kilter &#8212; but this has been a hard message to sell. <em>Why is it cheaper to rent?<\/em> Because of many factors, but the math says that&#8217;s what&#8217;s most likely the best course. <em>When will it correct?<\/em> Who knows but likely not tomorrow, a few years or so. <em>You know nothing Jon Snow &#8212; I have an open house to hit.<\/em> Those theoretical, general answers clearly didn&#8217;t cut it.<\/p>\n<p>It seems that the meme unleashed by the Panama papers and stories of money laundering is one that resonates really well. Foreigners driving the cost beyond all reasonable affordability is a more salient reason for renting being a good move for now than a simple it&#8217;s too expensive for many possible reasons.<\/p>\n<p><strong>&#8220;We&#8217;re just Panama north!&#8221; <\/strong><br \/>\n&#8220;There are so many empty condos in my building.&#8221;<br \/>\n&#8220;They&#8217;re not even playing the same game we are.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>I find it weird that a bubble described as high (and rapidly increasing) prices compared to moderate (and flat) rents was completely invisible &#8212; not even admitted as a low-probability possibility &#8212; but high prices plus alleged money laundering is immediately apparent as being an almost certain bubble, but that&#8217;s the conjunction fallacy for you.<\/p>\n<p>There tend to be two camps on how to respond once people buy in to the predicate that hot money is behind prices increasing<span title=\"Again for clarity: I don't think hot money is the sole or even main reason, I'm more in the low rates\/animal spirits\/general cause camp. Prices are unsustainably high for many interacting reasons, and almost no matter what the underlying reason is the end conclusion is the same -- managing your risk exposure and renting your shelter.\"><sup>1<\/sup><\/span>:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Greater fool\/<span title=\"Fear Of Missing Out\">FOMO<\/span> thinking, where the response is to buy now at any price <em>while you still can<\/em>, because you can sell later for even more because there&#8217;s no limit to the foreign money as long as we are cheaper than <span title=\"but never compare to Boston\/Chicago\/Houston\">Tokyo\/London\/New York<\/span>.<\/li>\n<li>Let the Grizzly have the fish thinking, where you stand clear of the explosive situation and see what shakes out &#8212; getting into a bidding war with a billionaire who&#8217;d be happy paying a 6-figure grease fee just to sneak money out is not a game you should be playing.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The conversation moved to the ironic feedback loop: foreign buyers buy for several reasons, but for capital flight it&#8217;s important that they can liquidate if needed. Even though they&#8217;re &#8220;clearly&#8221; responsible for driving prices up, they&#8217;re not the only market participants. Canadian buyers keep paying any price and are not suspicious of recent flips, reinforcing the idea that a GTA\/GVA property can be liquidated at will.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, another feature for the rental camp: price-to-rent is explained because hypothesized foreign capital is clearly not competing for rental space. They are not buying to have a pied-a-terre in Toronto or Vancouver &#8212; the prices paid are not for the usage of the property, as many are reportedly left empty. <\/p>\n<p>Interesting changes in the small slice of the gestalt I can overhear.<\/p>\n<p><small>1. Again for clarity: I don&#8217;t think hot money is the sole or even main reason, I&#8217;m more in the low rates\/animal spirits\/general cause camp. Prices are unsustainably high for many interacting reasons, and almost no matter what the underlying reason is the end conclusion is the same &#8212; managing your risk exposure and renting your shelter.<\/small><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>There&#8217;s a neat experiment in behavioural economics where people see a scenario that is more specific (and is actually less likely to happen) as being more likely to occur than a general case because it resonates better. The classic example (via Wikipedia): Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.holypotato.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1490"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.holypotato.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.holypotato.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.holypotato.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.holypotato.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1490"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.holypotato.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1490\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1494,"href":"https:\/\/www.holypotato.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1490\/revisions\/1494"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.holypotato.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.holypotato.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.holypotato.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}