No, not really.

It matters whether the margin is higher than other investment opportunities of similar scale and risk profile.

Already, the answer is very often no. In Austin, the answer will increasingly be no. That means people will not finance new construction, so if demand continues to grow it will outstrip supply and prices will go back up until the margin on new construction exceeds that of alternative investment opportunities of similar scale and risk profile.

▲

epistasis 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes really, that deeper understanding is exactly what is meant when somebody says "the cost to build is lower than the price." If we're going to be pedantic, you're ignoring the huge amounts of uncertainty on costs that are inherent to any project, the amount of risk versus the expected profit.

And indeed that amount of uncertainty: will I be allowed to build eventually? How long will I have to pay interests on assets before I'm allowed to build? Can I actually build what's specified in code or will discretionary processes arbitrarily change what I'm allowed to do, 18 months into the project?

	▲	estearum 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Yes really, that deeper understanding is exactly what is meant when somebody says "the cost to build is lower than the price. It demonstrably is not what people understand it to mean to "the cost to build is lower than the price." The cost to build can be well below the sale price and development still be a totally uninvestable activity.

▲

pclowes 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would expect the development of Austin to continue until market equilibrium and then pause. Decreasing margin does not mean equilibrium. Obviously austin is not at equilibrium because we still have price data on developer activity and that would be near zero if developers couldn’t make returns given risk etc.

I guess I don’t see where we disagree?

▲

lotsofpulp 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Your explanation of fluctuations in supply and demand are not very revelatory. Everything being in flux at all times is kind of an elementary fact of life.

	▲	estearum 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's clearly not elementary if people here believe that you can just keep building until prices collapse, and people will still keep building. The question is whether the market achieves equilibrium at a point where 1) developers can get financing to build profitably, and 2) units can be sold at a broadly attainable price to the local market. The answer appears to be no because the cost of inputs is so high. No one here is talking about directly reducing the cost of inputs. They believe that instead developers will just continue to build units that they sell at a loss, or at least investors will continue to invest in construction that returns less than the S&P 500 or 10 Year Treasuries (they won't).