1982: Trump Arrest, Wagging the Dog, Inflation Induced Debt Destruction, Fractional investing, Empowered Investor Pro, FHA Mortgage Insurance Premium, Tobias Peter

This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company.

For more information and links to all.

Our great podcasts, visit hartmanmedia.com.

My name is Brandon Cook. This is my fourth Meet the Masters seminar. All these markets that Jason and his network endorses are great markets. We're getting better. Higher rents, prices are going up right now. But with financing terms as good as they are, they're still real great deals and all have been through Jason's network.

Welcome to the Creating wealth show with Jason Hartman. You're about to learn a new slant on investing, some exciting techniques and fresh new approaches to the world's most historically proven asset class that will enable you to create more wealth and freedom than you ever thought possible. Jason is a genuine, self made multimillionaire who's actually been there and done it. He's a successful investor, lender, developer and entrepreneur whose own property in 11 states had hundreds of tenants and been involved in thousands of real estate transactions. This program will help you follow in Jason's footsteps on the road to your Financial Independence Day. You really can do it. And now here's your host, Jason Hartman with the complete solution for real estate investors.

Welcome to episode 1982 and three. Thank you for joining us today. We've got Tobias Peter with the American Enterprise Institute back with us today. Just to finish up on our discussion from Monday. So his part will be fairly short here today, but before we get to that, a few things to cover. There's a lot going on in the news. Yes. I will not talk about the fact that we have an ex president who is being politically attacked with the force of law. It's just absolutely shocking. Love them or hate them, this is really a scary thing to think that you can just go after political enemies like this when certainly if there is any crime here, there have been much bigger crimes committed by most certainly and most similarly Bill Clinton, but you know, nothing. It's just unbelievable. I mean the world we are living in, as I always say, you know, 1990 was the peak of civilization and since then we've been witnessing the slow collapse of civilization. But interestingly, with everybody talking about the dollar and the idea that, you know, the brics countries will get together and they will supplant the dollar as the reserve currency, this is just not going to happen anytime soon. So it's really a waste of time to being worrying about that. It is a distraction or you know, you could say that this is a distraction from that. You know, whatever. There's, there's lots of wagging the dog going On. And by the way, if you have not seen that old movie entitled Wag the Dog, you must see it just to understand and really kind of see some examples of how they do Wag the dog. So it's very interesting. But do not worry about this whole BRICS thing and the reserve currency issue because even if it did happen, and that would be a very slow and difficult process, there's nibbling around the edges, but it's nothing. It's a bucket of water in the ocean. It's just a non event. And everybody with their clickbait headlines and sensationalism is trying to make a big deal out of it. Like, oh, we gotta all be worried about this. America is losing its power. Yeah, kind of slowly, sure, fine. But this is all going to turn really later this decade when China hits their demographic cliff, their demographic disaster. So do not worry about that. I mean, literally, you've got Russia and China, two dying countries, dying countries conspiring against the US Empire. And the idea that this is going to be some major world event is just, it's just ridiculous. It really is. So don't be influenced too much by the clickbait. But even if it does happen, what will that do? Well, it would be very much inflationary for United States citizens, for the US economy. We would experience dramatically higher inflation than we're seeing now if that happened. And guess what, all of you listening, you're protected from that. Actually, you're not just protected from it. Selfishly, you should wish it happens because you, you will benefit from that because you are using my inflation induced debt destruction strategy, been talking about that for 18 years. Inflation induced debt destruction, the strategy that works in an inflationary environment. So say, for example, the US currency, the dollar, just completely loses its status and then we have the type of inflation that we in the US have been able to export to other countries who have suffered from it. And I can see why these countries would be upset with the American empire. But you know, on balance, to be fair to the U.S. they should also appreciate the massive contributions the United States has made to the world. Going back even before the Marshall Plan. The US has contributed a lot to the world. Okay? So yes, they throw their weight around. Of course they do. Anybody would. That's just the way it works. But on balance, given the power that the US has, I would really give them a lot of credit for not using it as much as they could. I mean, think about it. The US was the first world superpower after Japan surrendered. At that point, the US could have literally Just dominated the world. But instead it decided to rebuild the world with the Marshall Plan and instead it decided to not to use its power in so many ways. So it's acted with a lot of restraint. I mean, you just gotta balance this stuff out, folks. All of these reactionaries on the left and the right and the, you know, I love the U.S. i hate the U.S. i'm a patriot, I'm, you know, an anti U.S. terrorist. Right. Like just the path is in the middle, right? It's a, the reasonable path is somewhere in between. These things are nuanced. There are a lot of different cross current type factors and we've just got to balance it out. But be careful not to get mired in the clickbait because it will distract you. Keep your eye on the ball. The opportunities for investors right now are fantastic. Inventory is low. There's a lot of pressure we're seeing for prices to rise even though we're on the verge of a real recession, I believe. I mean, I've been saying that for a while. It still hasn't really come, at least not officially, but it's coming. I mean the likely scenario here is that the Fed will keep going until they break more things. We will enter an official recession. The rates will go down, we will still have low real estate inventory and that will light the market on fire in terms of prices. And housing affordability is so low, that's putting upward pressure on rents. Don't be confused though because you're seeing the surveys on the multifamily rents that are softening and suffering because it's just oversupplied. And again that will equalize, but it'll take a couple of years. So we'll see what happens there. Okay, I got a few things to cover, some important stuff in the news here. So first off, and this is not the super like breaking news, but it's just interesting. We've talked about it a bit over the years and this is the whole idea of fractionalized ownership of properties. Another company announced a crypto backed mortgage. These are interesting to see some of this financial innovation. You know, I'm always a little scared of that word because whenever Wall street uses the word financial innovation, you know, you gotta run for the hills. You know that Goldman sucks. And the others will be the ones profiting from this and not us, not the people in the middle class, in the upper middle class. They will simply be taking our money with their financial innovations. They always make sure they win. But whatever, you know, the idea of this decentralized Stuff with using blockchain and NFTs and cryptocurrency and you know, look, NFTs, we've talked about that more than enough over the past couple of years. It's largely a scam. But the concept of an NFT being able to digitally prove ownership of something like a share of a single family home, this is already being done with larger projects. It's just there's not enough economy of scale in individual single family homes to do it yet. But that's yet it will come. This is coming to where some guy in a developing country in say Africa can buy $10 worth of a property, a rental property in the United States. And what will this mean for us? What will this mean? Well, for investors, this will put upward pressure on prices dramatically because again, supply is limited. It's hard to create new supply of properties. And if more money floods into the market, which it will, this asset class will just see more and more money flood into it over time as these new innovations become available to where people can buy easily buy fractionalized ownership in even individual homes, right. On larger properties, you know, there's lots of syndicators out there, there are lots of funds, there are lots of tenant in common or tick investments. Not as many as there used to be because that was a bit of a disaster. But in the early 2000s we saw that proliferate and then, you know, that market pulled back quite a bit, but it's still there. And the more those people go out and raise money, the more money flows into the asset class, right? And money is taken away from the Wall Streeters, right? So it's just that money is redirected. It's like you have a river, you put up a dam and the water flows in a different direction. When you put the dam up, right? You control the flow of the water. And so there's all these competing interests to control the flow of all this money. But we are on the verge of seeing a whole bunch of opportunities. I mean, who knows exactly how long it'll take. I'm just saying it's coming, I don't know exactly when. Every day we get a little closer. Might be few years before this really happens in any significant way. We will see. But the point is it means at the end of the day more money flowing into the asset class. So this article from one of my newsletters, Fractional Investing is making everyone a landlord kinda. And this is kind of from the tenants perspective, right? I can't even get my one landlord to fix my sink and now it turns out there may actually be a, a 100 headed Hydra landlord. You know, this is per Wired magazine and it's talking about fractional investment, allowing multiple investors to buy shares of properties and of course, real estate investment trust and the other things I mentioned earlier and crowdfunding. You know, they bet they've been doing this for a while, but all this means is more and more dollars flowing into the asset class we all love so much. The most historically proven asset class in the entire world, income, property. More money is flowing in. So it's kind of like what we see now is we see this swell out in the ocean, right? It's a swell, but eventually as it approaches the shore, it turns into a big wave, maybe even a tsunami, right? A tsunami of capital flowing into the asset class. So this is something interesting to watch, but it is good news for you as investors, as long as you already own the properties and you're not planning to buy them after this flood of money comes in. Because of course then you're paying a higher price. All right, let's get to the next thing. Oh, we had such a great discussion last night for our Empowered Investor Pro group. I was on Zoom with everybody last night for 1 hour and 48 minutes exactly. And we just had a great Zoom meeting. We have monthly meetings on the first Tuesday of every month. We took a whole bunch of questions. We had a lender on there discussing really nitty gritty details of alternative financing options for investors. We discussed asset protection in nitty gritty details where people participate, they ask questions, they get their questions answered. It's just such a great group. So thank you for all of you members and for all that attended last night on our monthly Zoom meeting. But I wanted to show today before I get to another big, big story that's going to have a big impact on real estate. A giant, giant lawsuit that has been filed. Gotta hear about this one coming up. We also include with our Empowered Investor Pro and our empowered mentoring programs, a social network. And I just wanted to show you briefly, like some of the topics in here. I mean, there's just so much good stuff, you know, cities with the highest and lowest property taxes. Apartment building sales dropping 74%. National Puppy Day. Hey, gotta have the important stuff in here, right? Accounting and bookkeeping topics, declining inventory, market research, inflation research, the Fed's emergency measures to prevent the banking crisis. Deep topics on Silicon Valley bank and the other bank failures. All the recordings of all of our prior Zoom meetings. So if you haven't been a pro member if you're just joining today, you get the advantage of being able to see all of those prior Zoom meetings in the vault, in the archive. And with the mentoring membership, you get to see all of the prior mentoring meetings. Now, pro members don't get to see that, okay? Because, you know, the mentoring is a higher level. We meet on Zoom once a week. We've got our meeting today for our mentoring members, but the pro members get a whole bunch of benefits, too. So get involved at a deeper level with us. There are just so many benefits, you know, referrals to vendors and contractors and really getting the nitty gritty on dealing with property managers. One of the things we do not do is we do not allow any property managers in these groups. They ask, hey, can I come and present and, you know, share some stuff with the members? No, you can't. Okay, we'll do that publicly. You know, we might have a special Zoom meeting for your clients once in a while, but in these groups, we want people to be able to speak freely about their property management experiences and what to do about them. Okay? So very important stuff. Empowered investor Pro membership or the mentoring membership. And also last night, we talked all about asset protection and estate planning. And if you want to see the new version of the webinar on that, it's the 2.0 web class we've got on that, go to Jason hartman.com protect that's totally free. Just check it out. If you're interested in getting your entities set up. LLCs, limited partnerships, corporations trust for estate planning and asset protection, Land trust, all of this stuff. Jason hartman.com Protect it. Is there, okay, this big case, this is a big deal, folks. Pay attention to this. You might think, well, I'm not affected. I'm not in the real estate business. I don't own a real estate company. Right. Or anything like that. But you are affected because this is huge. A federal judge in Illinois just granted class action status. So what happens is a lawsuit is filed, and the claimant says, look, you know, court, we believe there are a whole bunch of people affected by this, so we want you to grant us class status to be a class action. So, of course, the damages on a class action suit could be zillions of dollars. Think of the tobacco company cases from years ago, right? And what should be the cases against that shot in the arm everybody got, right, but they somehow got exempted from, you know, from litigation and liability. Scary, scary stuff. Anyway, the national association of Realtors had been fighting this, but they lost, okay? And they're the largest trade lobbying organization in the world with something like 1.3 million members. Huge organization of which I used to be a member. And we've had them on the show. Lawrence Yoon, the chief economist for the national association of Realtors, has been on the show before. Okay, so. And various franchisors, the big ones, Keller Williams, ReMax Home Services of America and Anywhere and I'm sure. And ReMax, my old company. I worked for ReMax for 12 years, okay, when I was in traditional real estate. And I'm sure others will be added to this case, other big real estate companies. Well, even if they don't lose the case, this could put these companies in peril financially because fighting such a giant case like this will literally cost an absolute fortune. I mean, millions and millions and millions of dollars. And if they lose, many of these companies, I think could go bankrupt. You know, they. I mean, this is a big, big deal. This is a big case, and it's over. You know, it's over commissions and that commission prices are fixed and they shouldn't be fixed and all of these various issues. So we'll continue to report on this as it unfolds. But this is going to have a big impact on the real estate industry as a whole, and it's going to have an impact of, you know, how much sellers and buyers pay for services. What might come out of it is that buyers have to pay their own commission and the seller can't pay it. That's a possible remedy where if the buyer wants to be represented by an agent, they'll have to sign a contract with the agent, like a buyer's broker agreement, and they'll have to pay their own commission. Now, what does that mean to you? Well, if you want to buy a property, can you finance that commission into the deal? Are the lenders going to allow you to finance that? Because effectively, it's always been financed because the seller pays for it. So it's to some extent added to the price. Right? Now, there are a lot of arguments about this both ways, but let's just assume that argument's true, that it's added to the price. Right. The realtor commissions are in there. And so you're effectively just financing that over 30 years when you get a mortgage. Right. And so this is a big deal. This case is going to have a big impact on the industry regardless of which way it turns out. Because even if the companies and NAR win this case and the court finds that there's no liability, it will still change the way they do business. So it's going to be a very, very significant thing and one to definitely, definitely watch. So more on this as it evolves. Okay, let's get to our guest today, our returning guest with the American Enterprise Institute. And here we go. It's quite interesting. And you know that article, I had Matt Taibbi on the show a few times and you know, he wrote that article about the great bubble machine. And it's hard to think that this is not intentional. Right. To just keep the poor people down. You know, like you said, Tobias, they buy late in the housing cycle. They always come to the game late. Right. They're never. So they didn't get the benefit of all that appreciation. Yeah, go ahead with what you're saying.

Yeah, no, I mean we're putting them into, into, you know, we're setting them up for failure and that's coming from the federal government. And I think that's, you know, that that's wrong and it's not that we don't have better, better alternatives. We have a loan product out called the Lift Lift Lift Home and a wealth building home loan that would, that would be geared towards lower income first time home buyers. You give them a little bit of, of subsidy. You don't need to, you know, it doesn't need to necessarily involve taxpayer money. You could just shift over some of the cross subsidies that Fannie and Freddie guarantee. You just would target them a little bit better to the borrowers that are, that really need, need to help and then you put them into 20 year loans. Because with 20 year loans you have half the default rate of a 30 year loan under stress and that would ensure that people have staying power and they can make it actually through the ups and downs of a housing cycle and they don't end up getting foreclosed.

Why would you have half the default rate on a shorter loan with a higher payment? Why would that be?

Because you are building equity much faster.

Okay.

So you have this cushion. And even if you get into trouble, modifying your loan is much easier if you have a 20 year loan and you are one or two years in than if you have a 30 year loan and you are one or 2 years in. Because going from a 30 to a 40 year loan doesn't get you much in payment relief. But if you had a 20 year loan and go to a 25 or 30 year, that gets you a lot of reduction in your monthly p. And I, of course, as you mentioned, Jason, the, the 20 year often comes with a higher, higher payment and our solution would Be as I said to, to direct these cross subsidies that are running in the billions of dollars from Fannie and Freddie, really target them to the low income first time home buyers below a certain threshold, AMI threshold, area, median income threshold and ensure that they can buy down the interest rate on their loan. So instead of getting a 7% interest rate, they could buy down to a 5 or a 6 or 5% interest rate. And now the payment would be roughly equivalent to the payment that you make with a 30 year loan. But you're getting the benefit of fast amortization.

Yeah, interesting. Okay, so you have sort of a next part. Is there more you want to talk about here? Because I want to make sure, Tobias, we have time to cover the policy issues.

Yeah, yeah, I mean we can talk about the policy issue here real quick. This is about again, fha. And FHA charges a mortgage insurance premium which is paid up. Yeah, it's paid upfront and some of it is paid upfront, some is monthly. But FHA just recently cut this mortgage insurance premium will therefore expose taxpayers to increase default risk and it will not help prospective home buyers. And this happened just, just last week or two weeks ago when FHA announced that they were going to reduce the premium from 85bps to 55bps or 30 basis point reduction. And this was done in reaction to what fhfa, the Federal Housing Finance Agency directed Fannie and Freddie to do. Namely they lowered their premiums, their loan level pricing adjusters to make mortgages for lower credit score borrowers more attractive. And that would have been a direct threat to fha. But now FHA comes back and blows them out of the water with the 30 bip reduction in the annual MIP. So it's really one arm of the government competing with the other arm of the government for the same type of borrowers. And this is creating this downward spiral in lending standards which exposes these borrowers to increase risk. And as I said before, it does not increase affordability. And the reason why it doesn't increase affordability is because all of these FHA borrowers are heavily concentrated in the same neighborhoods. So if you have a supply shortage and you're increasing demand, all you're going to do is end up driving home prices.

This is so obvious to anybody that knows anything about economics. Every time the government, every time the government comes out and they try to make anything, you know, student loans, the houses, mortgages, more affordable, right? All they do is make it more expensive. You know, they did cash for clunkers. It's the Same idea, right? I mean, you know, the only way to increase affordability in anything is to increase the supply or reduce the demand. All of these things increase the demand. Like if you look at Fannie Mae, the stated goal of Fannie Mae is to increase homeownership. Anything that you promote and increase, you're going to push it up in price unless you have more supply. The only way to solve the problem is with more supply. We know there's tons of demand, so how do we increase supply? You know, we talked about California and the ADUs and so forth. You know, that's. We'll see how that works out. I mean, it's California, so I have a feeling it's not going to work as well as they hoped, but we'll see. But how do we do it nationwide? You know, when we talk about housing, it is a low tech asset and it's hard to disrupt a low tech thing that's made of atoms. I think we have to get rid of this stigma and I don't know how it's ever going to happen against manufactured homes. I mean, the manufactured home of today is, you know, not your grandfather's Buick, as the saying goes. Right. It's. They're quite nice. And I think we have to accept that houses should be. More of them should be made in factories. But. But what else can we do?

Yeah, so a couple things. So our preferred solution would be for the government just to get out of the way. And that comes into place with zoning particularly, and also the environmental standards that they put in place.

So now you're talking mostly local governments.

I mean, this has to happen at the state or local level. I mean, the federal government created this mess because in the 1920s this was president. Later than President Hoover, he created a commission on zoning where they explicitly recommended single family detached zoning, exclusionary zoning, and doing away with exclusionary zoning and having. Making certain parts of the city exclusively zone for single family detached zoning house housing. Sorry. And the idea behind this was to drive home prices higher so that undesirable groups, namely blacks, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans and other undesirable groups were eventually going to be priced out of the market. And.

And now they do that with environmental restrictions.

Exactly.

You know, I had, you'll find this interesting, Tobias. Years ago I had the great Thomas Soul on my show. Oh yeah, you know, he's, he's awesome. He's written a zillion books and you know, he's retired now in, in his 90s and. But it, I coined a term on that Episode, it was like episode number one eleven and now we're almost at 2,000. Okay. But I coined a term, environmental racism because, you know, it's that NIMBY syndrome. Right? As long as we've got our home here now we want to keep everybody else out, so we'll drive the prices up and keep those undesirables out. And they all do it under, oh, you know, we've got to save the land and dedicated permanent open space. And you know, it's just a, it's such a lie.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I mean, I, I agree with you on that. And we have a conference coming up. So, you know, if some of your listeners are interested, we are going to have a conference on, on particular this issue where we're going to be dealing with displacement. But we can, we can show from our work, when the government gets out of the way and allows for moderately higher density, the free market is responding and it is capable of producing new housing and in quantities that actually make a difference. So for example, in Seattle, of all places, again Seattle, Washington, back in the 1990s, they realized, well, we're going to run out of housing, affordable housing, so we need to do something. But they didn't want to do it across the whole city. So they limited it to some what they called urban villages. And those are kind of, they are more generally a little bit more close to transit, but not exclusively transit. They just kind of tend to be more hub type places. And in these areas, as home prices increased and land became more expensive, the developers came in and they started buying these single family detached homes. Many of them were built in the 1990s. They were very small, about 1400, 1500 square feet. But they were on large lots, relatively large, lots of 5,000 thousand, 6,000 square feet. And they started buying them up, tearing them down and rebuilding them with, with duplexes. And we can show that these single family detached homes, if they were still in existence today, they would be selling for a million dollars. But these townhouses are duplexes. They're also selling for a million dollars. But now you're selling two on the same parcel, or you have four on the same parcel. So now you have, in fact, I'm driving up the supply of housing by, by three net three units. And the units are still relatively affordable. And what we find is that because all this building has happened, they've added 18,000 new units. But also when we look at the people that have been buying these units, they tend to be lower income individuals and many of them tend to be first time home buyers as you really want to encourage them. But it all starts with supply. As you said, if you don't have more supply, all you're going to end up doing is driving these people out of the market and driving them into rentals. But if the goal is to increase homeownership, you need to do something on the supply front and we can show that it works. And we've also, you can look at Houston where the same thing is happening, massive response to supply. Once you, once you let the market do it, you can look at Tokyo, you can look at many different places.

Right. And by the way, I just want to be clear too. I'm not necessarily wanting to increase home ownership. I am the one rebel that doesn't think we need to increase home ownership. We just need to increase the number of homes so people can rent them for more reasonable prices. And I know that sounds so counterintuitive because we, you know, I have, I have my own investments and I like to see high rents and so do all of our listeners. But you know, overall, we got to think about what's good for society, right? We've got to get out of this problem. And having a reasonable market, we can all still make tons of money in a reasonable market with reasonable amounts of inventory, because this type of market that we've existed in for the last, oh, six or seven decades, maybe it's not sustainable. This is not a sustainable economy. It creates all sorts of societal ills. And by the way, high homeownership rate, I'm pretty convinced that creates higher unemployment because people can't move as easily to where the jobs are. So I think the natural homeownership rate really is about 55%. But, you know, it doesn't matter. Look, we just need more affordable housing. That's, that's the sum of it. Rent or buy.

And speaking about that housing shortage that we have, I mean, it kind of depends on who you listen to. There's some people that say, well, it's a million. Others say it's 4 million, others say it's 8 million. I mean, we think it's probably closer to about 20, 22 million housing units.

Oh my gosh, tell us about that. Yes, that's the highest number I've heard anybody say. You got to take a deep dive into that.

Yeah, I mean, this is following a study that was done under the leadership of Mike Lee, the senator Mike Lee from Utah, was done by my colleague, my former colleague, and now again colleague, Kevin Corinth. But he had the brilliant insight that, well, we know what the cost of land is, and in many of these places, the cost of land, particularly out In California, it's 50, 60, 70% of the total package of the structure and land. And a normal land share is typically considered 20%. So how many more units would you need to add to get this land share down to a more normal rate? And we think that 20 is a little bit low. So we say we should probably get to a land share of about 30%. But given that in lots of places around the country, we had 60, 70% land share, that's a large shortage, and you can still make a lot of money even by adding a little bit to supply.

Okay, but that didn't answer the, that was a very roundabout way of kind of answering the question of, you think we need 20 million more housing units in the country. Now, by the way, and I see varying numbers on this, but the number that seems to be somewhat consistent is that we have about 140 million housing units in the country. Is that about right?

That's about right, yeah.

Okay, so you say we need 160 million housing units in the country.

Right.

And just remember, too, some of that housing stock becomes obsolete. You know, it just needs to be torn down and replaced. So that's part of the equation. But how is it that we need 20 million more?

I mean, it's just, it's just simple arithmetic. Because if, if you have a shortage of housing, you're not going to change the structure value. The structure is the structure. The structure. If anything depreciates, what do you. And if you have increased.

Change the land value. I get it.

Yeah. If you, if you have increasing home prices, it's not because, because the structure is worth more. It's because the land is becoming more.

I'm so glad you said that. You know, I, I teach a Strategy. Took me 19 years to discover it. It's called the Hartman Risk Evaluator. And it teaches people exactly that, how they're buying two components, the land and the improvement. And I created a ratio. I think I even trademarked this one. I've got a whole bunch of trademarks on this stuff. But the, instead of the LTV ratio, the loan to value ratio, I call it the LTI ratio, the land to improvement ratio ratio. Okay, and, and so I'm, I'm right there with you. I, I agree, you know, and in some areas, that ratio is even worse than you're saying. It's, you know, with some areas of, say, California, where I used to live. It's 80%, 85% land. And that's the volatile part of the market because that shifts a lot more than the improvement does. So that's the risk area. Okay? That's what the risk evaluator teaches. But. But you're coming at it from a very different perspective. You're saying, ideally, the land value should be 30% and the structure value or improvement value should be 70%. Most people to arrive at how many units shortage do we have? They would say, well, here's the demographics, here's the age of the millennials and the age of the zoomers, and here's their prime household formation years, and here's the number of units we have now. And, you know, we're going to project how many people will die and how many of those houses will be passed. You didn't come that way at all at the American Enterprise Institute.

No, no, I mean, it's very simple. I mean, it's. Because, I mean, all these, I mean, kind of household formation, you can double up, right? And probably a lot of people have doubled up because home prices have just got.

Yeah, but that's not their ideal scenario. They don't want to double up.

No, no, they don't want to double up. But hence, if you look at the land and you're saying, if the land is 70%, how many more units would we need to add to get to a more normal land share of 30%? So it really becomes a simple, simple calculation. And that's the beauty of this. It's really, really simple.

That's very interesting. Very interesting. That's a new one. I haven't heard that before. I gotta ponder that for a while. Okay, good. Tobias? Yeah. What else do you want to share before you go? We've gone long. We got to wrap it up. Love to have you back on the show.

Yeah, no, absolutely. Happy to come back. We can talk a little bit more about the supply that side, if you. If you're interested, for example, but just.

Anything more on the supply, like loosening regulations and anything else you wanted, like any other big point you want to get across there before you go.

Yeah, I mean, the big point is the federal government has no role in this. I mean, the federal government screwed this up. The federal government, if they were to get involved again through whichever way the federal government has a one size fits all solution, it is not one size fits all. And I much rather have the 50 states and localities being the laboratories of democracy where they, you know, kind of play around with this figure out what works at various levels and then. And then have the best performers be copied by the others rather than have the federal government, the government screw this up before it's going to screw it up again.

Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. Tobias. Thank you for joining us. Give out your website and tell people where they can find you.

Yeah, I mean, happy to. Our website is www.AI.org housing. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. My email is tobias.peterai.org and yeah, always happy to talk housing.

Tobias Peter, thanks for joining us.

Thanks Jason.

Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to subscribe so that you don't miss any episodes. Be sure to check out this show's specific website and our general website, hartmanmedia.com for appropriate disclaimers and terms of service. Remember that guest opinions are their own and if you require specific legal or tax advice or advice in any other specialized area this please consult an appropriate professional and we also very much appreciate you reviewing the show. Please go to iTunes or Stitcher Radio or whatever platform you're using and write a review for the show. We would very much appreciate that and be sure to make it official and subscribe so you do not miss any episodes. We look forward to seeing you on the next episode.