[njstraub608]

I like the author's analysis and appreciate the breakdown of his sources, but I think he took some shortcuts that makes me question his conclusion.

Some examples:

"With more money being saved, and investments yielding higher returns, the more there is to spend on homes."

I tried dig up more information about how exactly BEA calculations the Personal Savings Rate, but it seems to be an estimate based on aggregate consumption. This savings rate doesn't necessarily imply that this money is invested in the stock market. Even if it was and they bought and then sold investments to pay for their homes they still have to pay taxes on those short-term sales. An increasing savings rate by ~26% over < 12 months is interesting but doesn't seem to be a strong argument. I think we need to go deeper here to see if this is a median number and how it would break down by demographics.

"We are in a record low rate environment, we’ve experienced unprecedented support via fiscal stimulus, and mortgage underwriting standards are far stronger than in the oughts, which has lead to less leverage and reduced the likelihood that a pile of cards built on risky mortgages will collapse the economy."

Generally with more expensive homes people are left with fewer options with who underwrites large loans, driving them to jumbo mortgage lenders. People may have stretched themselves to be able to buy a home given the low rates and the need for more space.