Connect with us

Markets

Mapped: The Countries With the Highest Housing Bubble Risks

Published

on

Mapped: The Countries With the Highest Housing Bubble Risks

Mapped: Countries With the Highest Housing Bubble Risks

With a decade-long bull market and an ultra low interest rate environment globally, it’s not surprising to see capital flock to housing assets.

For many investors, real estate is considered as good of a place as any to park money—but what happens when things get a little too frothy, and the fundamentals begin to slip away?

In recent years, experts have been closely watching several indicators that point to rising bubble risks in some housing markets. Further, they are also warning that countries like Canada and New Zealand may be overdue for a correction in housing prices.

Key Housing Market Indicators

Earlier this week, Bloomberg published results from a new study by economist Niraj Shah as he aimed to build a housing bubble dashboard.

It tracks four key metrics:

  1. House Price-Rent Ratio
    The ratio of house prices to the annualized cost of rent
  2. House Price-Income Ratio
    The ratio of house prices to household income
  3. Real House Prices
    Housing prices adjusted for inflation
  4. Credit to Households (% of GDP)
    Amount of debt held by households, compared to total economic output

Ranking high on just one of these metrics is a warning sign for a country’s housing market, while ranking high on multiple measures signals even greater fragility.

Housing Bubble Risks, by Indicator

Let’s look at each bubble risk indicator, and see how they apply to the 22 countries covered by the housing dashboard.

It should be noted that most of the measures here are shown in an index form, using the year 2015 as a base year. In other words, the data is not representative of the ratio itself—but instead, how much the ratio has risen or fallen since 2015.

1. House Price-Rent Ratio

When looking at housing prices in comparison to rents, there are four countries that stand out.

New Zealand (196.8) and Canada (195.9) have seen ratios of housing prices to rents nearly double since 2015. Meanwhile, Sweden (172.8) and Norway (168.2) are not far behind.

Elsewhere in the world, this ratio is much more in line with expectations. For example, in Portugal—where house prices have skyrocketed over recent years—rents have increased at nearly the same rate, giving the country a 99.2 score.

2. House Price-Income Ratio

There are three familiar names at the top of this bubble indicator: New Zealand (156.8), Canada (155.3), and Sweden (145.7).

In places where rents are lagging housing prices, so are the levels of household income. For how long will people afford to buy increasingly expensive houses, if their incomes continue to lag?

3. Real House Prices

Real house prices have increased in all of the 22 markets, with the exception of Italy (95.5).

For this indicator, there are five markets that stand out as having fast-rising prices: Portugal (131.8), Ireland (127.6), Netherlands (121.9), Canada (124.1), and New Zealand (121.9). The latter two (Canada/New Zealand) have appeared near the top of all three bubble indicators, so far.

4. Credit to Households (% of GDP)

Exceedingly high debt ratios point to a strain on consumer finances – and when finances are strained, the chance of a default increases.

Switzerland (128.7%), Australia (120.3%), and Denmark (115.4%) top the list here with consumer debt far exceeding country GDP levels. However, Canada still makes an appearance in the top five with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 100.7%.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Comments

Markets

The 20 Most and Least Profitable Companies, Per Employee

The U.S. companies on the Fortune 500 boast $1.2 trillion in combined profit—but which bring in the best and worst profit per employee?

Published

on

The 20 Most and Least Profitable Companies, Per Employee

The Fortune 500 is an elite club of the biggest American businesses, which combined to generate profits of over $1.2 trillion in 2019.

But how much profit do these companies make on a per employee basis?

This visualization uncovers the answer by comparing the 20 companies with the most and least returns per employee, using calculations from Tipalti (based on the Fortune 500 list).

Top 20: Most Profit per Employee

Diving right in, the companies that make the most money per employee may surprise you.

Housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac take two of the top three spots, bringing in $1.9 million and $1.0 million per employee respectively in 2019.

The two U.S. government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are major players in the secondary mortgage market, buying and repackaging nearly half the mortgages in the country. The duo was allowed to retain their profits as of October 2019, instead of returning them to the U.S. Treasury.

CompanySectorProfit per EmployeeProfits ($M)Employees
Fannie Mae
(Federal National Mortgage Association)
Financials$1,888,000$14,1607,500
KKRFinancials$1,448,699$2,0051,384
Freddie Mac
(Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation)
Financials$1,046,721$7,2146,892
NRG EnergyEnergy$969,631$4,4384,577
EOG ResourcesEnergy$943,103$2,7352,900
BiogenHealth Care$795,811$5,8897,400
Blackstone GroupFinancials$705,680$2,0502,905
ConocoPhillipsEnergy$691,250$7,18910,400
Enterprise Products PartnersEnergy$628,904$4,5917,300
VisaBusiness Services$619,487$12,08019,500
Simon Property GroupFinancials$560,533$2,1023,750
Gilead SciencesHealth Care$456,441$5,38611,800
OneokEnergy$443,789$1,2792,882
FM GlobalFinancials$443,391$2,4795,591
MastercardBusiness Services$436,452$8,11818,600
Cheniere EnergyEnergy$423,529$6481,530
FacebookTechnology$411,308$18,48544,942
AppleTechnology$403,328$55,256137,000
Cincinnati FinancialFinancials$384,038$1,9975,200
Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceFinancials$373,989$3,7019,896

Apple employs 137,000 people—the largest workforce by far among the 40 companies profiled—but still makes $403,328 per employee. Facebook is the only other tech giant to bring in more money per employee at $411,308.

Bottom 20: Least Profit per Employee

On the other end of the spectrum, Uber is one of the most well-known companies currently bleeding profits, losing $316K per employee. In fact, the ride-hailing service lost approximately $5.2 billion in the second quarter of 2020 alone.

CompanySectorProfit per EmployeeProfits ($M)Employees
ApacheEnergy-$1,123,301-$3,5533,163
EnLink MidstreamEnergy-$825,830-$1,1191,355
Brighthouse FinancialFinancials-$556,391-$7401,330
PG&EEnergy-$332,870-$7,65623,000
Frontier CommunicationsTelecommunications-$322,706-$5,91118,317
Uber TechnologiesTechnology-$316,208-$8,50626,900
HessEnergy-$229,859-$4081,775
CotyHousehold Products-$199,158-$3,78419,000
Devon EnergyEnergy-$197,222-$3551,800
Altria GroupFood, Beverages & Tobacco-$177,123-$1,2937,300
National Oilwell VarcoEnergy-$175,927-$6,09534,645
Equitable HoldingsFinancials-$171,584-$1,73310,100
Chesapeake EnergyEnergy-$133,913-$3082,300
CenturyLinkTelecommunications-$123,976-$5,26942,500
MosaicChemicals-$84,683-$1,06712,600
AlcoaMaterials-$81,522-$1,12513,800
Targa ResourcesEnergy-$77,985-$2092,680
Voya FinancialFinancials-$58,500-$3516,000
WayfairRetailing-$57,992-$98516,985
Occidental PetroleumEnergy-$46,319-$66714,400

COVID-19 has also had an intense effect on some of the companies at the bottom end of the profit per employee spectrum. Chesapeake Energy and Frontier Communications are just two examples that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in recent months—they each lost $134K and $322K per employee in 2019 respectively.

I’m pretty confident we will see more bankruptcies than in any business person’s lifetime.

James Hammond, CEO of BankruptcyData

Profit per Employee by Sector

When all the companies in the Fortune 500 are taken into account, sector-specific numbers reveal interesting trends.

Financials bring in the most profit per employee at $116K, while Food and Drug Stores see 17 times less profit at $6.7K per employee. In fact, eight out of the top 20 most profitable companies are found in the financial sector.

SectorProfits per EmployeeProfits ($M)Employees
Financials$116,228$378,4453,256,067
Technology$87,532$252,8362,888,490
Energy$85,547$75,410881,505
Media$57,947$21,634373,333
Health Care$54,679$145,1662,654,872
Telecommunications$50,636$38,251755,417
F&B incl. Tobacco$41,946$42,9241,023,317
Business Services$39,354$36,835936,000
Chemicals$27,977$11,328404,888
Apparel$26,154$7,776297,300
Industrials$25,827$27,0061,045,675
Aerospace & Defence$24,793$23,903964,100
Household Products$24,504$10,415425,038
Transportation$21,762$32,4541,491,358
Engineering & Construction$19,648$6,773344,716
Materials$13,408$6,024449,252
Retailing$10,373$67,3186,489,923
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure$9,653$16,8801,748,714
Wholesalers$9,025$5,842647,312
Motor Vehicles & Parts$8,113$7,108876,123
Food & Drug Stores$6,746$8,3551,238,645

Interestingly, as a whole, the energy sector comes in third place in terms of profit per employee at $86K—that said, nine out of the bottom 20 least profitable companies are also found in this highly volatile industry.

Though the vast majority of businesses impacted by COVID-19 have been small to mid-sized companies, the above calculations also show that Fortune 500 companies are not safe, either.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Continue Reading

Markets

How the S&P 500 Performed During Major Market Crashes

How does the COVID-19 market crash compare to previous financial crises? We navigate different contextual factors impacting crashes.

Published

on

How the S&P 500 Performed During Major Market Crashes

Like spectacular market peaks, market crashes have been a persistent feature of the S&P 500 throughout time.

Still, the forces underpinning each rise and fall are often less clear. Take the COVID-19 crash, for example. Despite lagging economic growth and historic unemployment levels, the S&P 500 bounced back 47% in just five months, in a stunning reversal.

Drawing data from Macrotrends, the above infographic compares six historic market crashes—examining the length of their recoveries and the contextual factors influencing their durations.

The Big Picture

How does the current COVID-19 crash of 2020 stack up against previous market crashes?

TitleStart — End DateDuration (Trading Days)% Drop
Black Tuesday / Great Crash*Sep 16, 1929 — Sept 22, 1954300 months (7,256 days)-86%
Nixon Shock / OPEC Oil EmbargoJan 11, 1973 — Jul 17, 198090 months (1,899 days)-48%
Black Monday**Oct 13, 1987 — May 15, 198919 months (402 days)-29%
Dot Com BubbleMar 24, 2000 — May 30, 200786 months (1,808 days)-49%
Global Financial CrisisOct 9, 2007 — Mar 28, 201365 months (1,379 days)-57%
COVID-19 Crash***Feb 19, 2020 — Ongoing5 months+ (117+ days)-34%

Price returns, based on nominal prices
*Black Tuesday occurred about a month after the market peak on Oct 29, 1929
**The market hit a peak on Oct 13th, prior to Black Monday on Oct 19,1987
***As of market close Aug 4, 2020

By far, the longest recovery of this list followed the devastation of Black Tuesday, while the shortest was Black Monday of 1987—where it took 19 months for the market to fully recover.

Let’s take a closer look at each market crash to navigate the economic climate at the time.

After the Fall

What were some factors that can help provide context into the crash?

1929: Black Tuesday / Great Crash

Following Black Tuesday in 1929, the U.S. stock market took 7,256 days—equal to about 25 years—to fully recover from peak to peak. In response to the market crisis, a coalition of banks bought blocks of shares, but with negligible effects. In turn, investors fled the market.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve Board rose the discount lending rate to 6%. As a result, borrowing costs climbed for consumers, businesses, and the central banks themselves. The tightening of rates led to unintended consequences, with the economy capitulating into the Great Depression. Of course, factors that contributed to its prolonged recovery have been debated, but these are just a few of the actions that had implications at the time.

1973: Nixon Shock / OPEC Oil Embargo

The Nixon Shock corresponded with a series of economic measures in response to high inflation. Soaring inflation devastated stocks, consuming real returns on capital. Around the same time, the oil embargo also occurred, with OPEC member countries halting oil exports to the U.S. and its allies, causing a severe spike in oil prices. It took seven years for the S&P 500 to return to its previous peak.

1987: Black Monday

While the exact cause of the 1987 crash has been debated, key factors include both the advent of computerized trading systems and overvalued markets.

To curtail the impact of the crash, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan aggressively slashed interest rates, repeatedly promising to take great lengths to stabilize the market. The S&P took under two years to recover.

2000: Dot Com Bubble

To curb the stratospheric rise of U.S. tech stocks, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates five times in eight months, sending the markets into a tailspin. Virtually $5 trillion in market value evaporated.

However, a number of well-known companies survived, including eBay and Amazon. At the time, Amazon’s stock price cratered from $107 to $11 while eBay lost 75% of its market value. Meanwhile, a number of Dot Com flops included Pets.com, WorldCom, and FreeInternet.com.

2007: Global Financial Crisis

Relaxed credit policies, the proliferation of subprime mortgages, credit default swaps, and commercial mortgage-backed securities were all factors behind the market turmoil of 2007. As banks carved out risky loans packaged in opaque tranches of debt, risk in the market accelerated.

Similar to 1987, the Federal Reserve initiated a number of rescue actions. Interest rates were brought down to historical levels and $498 billion in bailouts were injected into the financial system. Crisis-related bailouts extended to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the Federal Housing Administration, and others.

2020: COVID-19 Crash

In 2020, historic fiscal stimulus measures along with trillions in Fed financing have factored heavily in its swift reversal. The result has been one of the steepest rallies in S&P 500 history.

At the same time, the economy is mirroring Great Depression-level unemployment numbers, reaching 14.7% in April 2020. In short, this starkly exposes the sharp disconnect between the markets and broader economy.

Bearing Witness

History offers many lessons, and in this case, a view into the shape of a post-coronavirus market recovery.

Although the stock market is likely rallying off Fed liquidity, investor optimism, and the promise of potential vaccines, it’s interesting to note that the trajectory of this crash in some ways resembles the initial rebound shown during the Great Depression—which means we may not be out of the woods quite yet.

As the S&P 500 edges 2% shy of its February peak, could the market post a hastened recovery—or is a protracted downturn in the cards?

This graphic has been inspired by this Reddit post.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Continue Reading

Subscribe

Join the 200,000+ subscribers who receive our daily email

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Popular