Wednesday, September 1st, 2010
I have made this point before several times (about the vastly superior information on the US seniors housing industry) but I was struck anew by the disparities between our two countries earlier this week. The wonderful National Investment Center is celebrating its 20th anniversary. It also has a new Research Director. In a recent newsletter, the Research Director talked about some of the directions he wants to pursue over the next few years. Here are some of the things he said:
Given the ever-increasing interest in our sector, we’re working to stay ahead of the curve, so to speak, by anticipating the research needs of our industry’s participants and prospective participants. Therefore, our top research priority remains the product enhancements associated with NIC MAP. That includes not only a forthcoming tool for portfolio benchmarking but also thereafter reports providing local trends analyses. In addition, NIC MAP reports soon will incorporate detailed sales transactions metrics, and we look forward to regularly reporting market effective rents, which incorporate any leasing promotional discounts. Later this year, in our ongoing effort to disseminate insightful and timely industry research, we’ll publish the inaugural edition of the NIC Investment Guide 2010 that will serve as a primer on our property sector and has been proclaimed by a number of the draft document’s reviewers as an unprecedented comprehensive overview of our industry.
[NIC Map is a quarterly data and analysis service that collects and disseminates a broad range of information on the seniors housing industry in the top 100 metro areas in the US.]
From a Canadian perspective, that is just an incredible goal. We are so far behind the curve we have no idea if it even exists or if we are in danger of driving off the road.
Here’s what I mean. Over the last few weeks it has become apparent that one of the sub-regional markets we track in the metro Vancouver area is very soft—much softer than any of the operators will admit to and much softer than the CMHC Seniors’ Housing Report indicates. The CMHC report indicates that the vacancy rate in this area is well under 10%. Legitimate people (ie real people, not mystery shoppers) seeking accommodation in this area have been led to believe that there are very few vacant units available and that anyone wanting a unit needs to act fast. If we were mystery shopping the area we would be told the same thing, although we are a lot more sceptical about what marketing people tell us. We look for other signs confirming the official story but often it is very hard to tell what the true vacancy situation is.
Rather disconcertingly, reliable information indicates a vacancy rate in this area that is approaching 20%. I can understand the motivation of the marketers: telling people you have a vacancy rate of 15% can be discouraging to prospective residents.
But the enormous difficulty of trying to truly understand the market means the signals to operators, developers, lenders, and analysts are confusing or contradictory or both. Not to mentions disingenuous to the consumer.
Tags: American vs. Canadian Seniors Housing, CMHC, Housing Development, Housing Market, Housing Options, Market Study, National Investment Center, Seniors' Housing
Posted in Market Studies, Marketing, News, Seniors' Housing | Comments Off
Subscribe