June 21, 2024

Do Falling Interest Rates Make Real Estate Prices Go Up?

In this edition of the Bird’s Eye View, we cover how real estate prices have historically moved in falling rate environments and explore some of the perils both in forecasting rates and what prices will do as a result of changes in rates.


On June 5th, 2024, the Bank of Canada announced its first interest rate cut in more than 4 years, stating that “with continued evidence that underlying inflation is easing, Governing Council agreed that monetary policy no longer needs to be as restrictive”.

Many experts believe there will be further reductions in 2024, and while we aren’t in the business of forecasting rates, we are in the business of determining how real estate prices might react to a variety of interest rate scenarios.



In this edition of the Bird’s Eye View, we cover how real estate prices have historically moved in falling rate environments and explore some of the perils both in forecasting rates and what prices will do as a result of changes in rates.



The Peril of Forecasting Interest Rates

It’s important to recognize at the outset that there is a huge amount of guesswork in forecasting interest rates. Even experts and Central Banks are prone to guessing incorrectly.


This point is summarized well by this chart comparing the 10-Year U.S. Treasury Rate, versus forecasts by the Survey of Professional Forecasters:


Source: Professional Forecasters’ Projections. Source: Figure 3 from Kirby, Barry, “Diminishing Returns: The Incredible Shrinking Bond Yield,” CapTrust, October 24, 2019.

When it comes to interest rates, there are so many variables in play that the forecasts of experts are often incorrect. Even Tiff Macklem, the Bank of Canada governor, is now somewhat famous for his July 2020 claim that “if you’ve got a mortgage or if you’re considering making a major purchase, or you're a business and you're considering making an investment, you can be confident rates will be low for a long time”.


All this is to say that when you read the news and see a consensus of experts agreeing that we will see 2 more rate cuts in 2024, take it with a grain of salt. We also believe that’s a likely outcome based on current information, but forecasting interest rates has a way of making even the most informed individuals look like fools.


With that caveat in mind, let’s explore how real estate has performed in previous declining rate cycles to get a better sense of what the future may have in store.




Learning from previous periods of rate decrease


Between August 1981 and March of 2022, Canada saw 41 years of generally declining interest rates, and over that time new house prices in Canada tripled, with an average price increase of ~2.8% per year over that period (adjusted for inflation).

However, looking specifically at the periods of declining rates on the table below, we see some interesting trends:

Each of these periods saw wildly different economic circumstances, and interest rate is only one variable in what causes changes in home price, but for the purposes of this article, it suffices to point out there has historically been a trend of below average price growth in periods of falling rates, followed by a period of above average appreciation.


The average annual new home price growth during the combined 14.83 years of rate decline considered above was 0.38%.


Why? In general, the Central Bank lowers interest rates in response to economic weakness. The low or negative GDP growth, higher unemployment and slower wage growth during these periods tends to slow home price growth more than the added affordability that comes with lower borrowing costs.


However, in the 3 years that follow a period of rate reduction, real estate has historically performed well. The average annual new home price growth during the combined 15 years following periods of rate decline was 4.84%, as lower borrowing costs along with an improving economy supported high price growth.


It’s also worth noting that in addition to the differing economic circumstances from today, these periods saw much larger rate decreases than we are likely to see in 2024-2025, so it’s difficult to know how applicable these previous scenarios are for forecasting.

Conclusion


This has been a whole lot of writing to come to some rather simple conclusions.


First, preparing yourself to be successful in any rate environment is much more fruitful than trying to predict where rates are going.


Second, when you see social media gurus, journalists, or industry insiders asserting that rate cuts are going to cause real estate prices to suddenly increase (Bank of Canada interest rate cut could be ‘tailwind’ for GTA real estate), know that they might be right, but that historically, price growth has been slower during rate decreases.


Third, owning real estate during periods of rate decline hasn’t been particularly rewarding, but the years following have been exceptional.


We don’t know how much and how fast rates will fall, how resilient our economy will be, or who will form government in the next election.


But that uncertainty is causing plenty of fear in the market, and frankly, we don’t mind that. It’s not the time to be swinging at every opportunity, but for those keeping their ear to the ground, there are genuinely exciting investment opportunities in this market.

Author

Hawkeye Wealth Ltd.

Date

June 21, 2024

Share

By Hawkeye Wealth Ltd. November 1, 2025
“To a landowner, there is nothing more important than security of title. Once you have fee-simple title in B.C., it has to mean that land is your land. And that is very fundamental to our province – and in fact, to the country.” - Niki Sharma, BC Attorney Genera l
By Hawkeye Wealth Ltd. October 4, 2025
Introduction Canadian farmland hasn’t posted a single annual decline in value since 1992 . Take a second to soak that up. More than thirty years, multiple recessions, inflation spikes, a housing crash and a tech- bubble. Through it all, farmland kept climbing. In a world where many asset classes appear vulnerable to technological disruption or shifting consumer preferences, the core value in farmland is tied to a necessity that will always remain constant. Food. In this edition of the Bird’s Eye View , we discuss the case for investing in Canadian farmland and share the most compelling points and potential risks from our due diligence on this asset class.  The Investment Case for Canadian Farmland In our view, farmland has six main features that make farmland investment attractive: 1. Consistent Performance and Low Volatility - A 30+ year track-record of positive annual returns is astounding, even more so when you consider that the average annual increase over that period has been 8.1%. Past performance doesn’t guarantee future returns, but there is merit to the fact that farmland has been remarkably consistent through periods of high market volatility. When considering that the figures above don’t account for any profit from the land, farmland has done an impressive job of delivering returns comparable to U.S. equities, but with a volatility profile that more closely resembles bonds. 2. Natural Scarcity - Most cities are established near fresh water and fertile soil. Thus as populations grow and cities expand, that development inherently reduces the base of potential farmland. While most provinces have some level of agricultural land protection program in place, the fact remains that there is a finite amount of farmable land, and each year there is less of it. 3. Diversification and Inflation Hedge - Farmland has a long track record of holding its value when inflation eats away at other assets. Rising food prices translate directly into stronger farm revenues, which in turn support rental income and land appreciation. Additionally, over the last 50 years, farms have averaged an increase in productivity of ~1.5% per year by adopting new technology and processes (machinery, irrigation, nutrient management), which serves as a natural inflation hedge. Unlike equities or bonds, farmland’s performance has shown little correlation with public markets , giving it genuine diversification benefits. 4. Investor-Tenant Alignment - For anyone feeling exhausted with the rhetoric about ‘greedy developers’, it may come as welcome news that investors and landlords aren’t automatically the bad guy in the farmland space. Research shows that farmers are able to drive higher levels of profitability per acre when renting compared to when purchasing farmland , and that trend is accelerating. While renting doesn’t necessarily outperform ownership over the long-run when accounting for land appreciation benefits, it does improve cashflow. Since farming is capital intensive, renting land allows farmers to allocate funds that would have otherwise gone to land, toward equipment and operations that improve yield and profitability. Since farmers’ profitability depends on sustaining yields, they are naturally incentivized to care for the soil and manage the land well, which not only supports their own returns but helps preserve and even enhance the underlying land value. As a result, the ‘renter’s mentality’ sometimes seen in other real estate sectors is far less common in farming. 5. Comparative Affordability - In housing, the current challenge is that people can’t afford to pay what developers can feasibly build. In comparison, while farms are comparatively less affordable than they were 5 years ago, the gap is far less dramatic than it has been in housing. Farm values and rents have rapidly increased, but the revenue generated by those farms has also substantially increased , which has slowed the loss of affordability. While current affordability levels are still a concern in the space, farmers can still operate profitably at current price levels and as shown on the chart below from Farm Credit Canada , we are nowhere near the peaks of unaffordability that farmers experienced during the 1980’s:
By Hawkeye Wealth Ltd. August 23, 2025
Introduction On paper, the cure for unaffordable housing is simple: build more. In practice, the very act of building undermines the incentive to keep building. The federal government has set a target of 500,000 new homes per year by 2035, but supply follows returns, not political will. As more units come online, margins shrink and investors retreat, a dynamic made worse by slowing population growth. In response, experts across Canada have signed competing open letters and budget submissions, each offering prescriptions for how to restore affordability. In this edition of The Bird’s Eye View , we explore the widening gap between Canada’s housing ambitions and the market realities on the ground. We look at why supply targets are so difficult to reach, how policy prescriptions diverge between advocates and developers, and where governments may need to adjust course to bring targets and incentives into alignment. The Scale of the Challenge By 2035, the federal government wants to see 500,000 new homes started each year ( Source ). CMHC estimates that for that same year, between 430,000 and 480,000 annual starts will be needed to restore affordability to 2019 levels ( Source ). Hitting these targets means roughly doubling today’s pace of 245,367 starts. The critical, often unstated requirement behind these supply targets is profitability. If projects don’t offer an attractive risk-adjusted return, they simply won’t get built. That challenge is already visible in Vancouver and Toronto, where housing starts are down because many projects just aren’t worth the risk of building for the returns projected. In the CMHC’s Housing Market Outlook Summer Update , CMHC cut housing start forecasts for every year from 2025–2027, with the 2027 baseline revised downward by 5.5% only five months after the previous forecast: