Statistically Speaking: The Changing Profile of Renter vs. Owner Households

February 12, 2019   by HFBusiness Staff in Business Strategy, Industry   

America has long been a nation of homeowners believing that owning a home versus renting is the best economic decision and a goal most households should strive to attain. But for many in pursuit of homeownership and those already there, the Great Recession forced the goal aside and renting became the viable alternative. Now safely out of the recession, many renters are choosing to stay put or better yet, keep the freedom to move. Renter-occupied housing is at its highest level in almost 50 years (36.2 percent of households) and up 9.3 percent 2010 to 2017. This compares to owner-occupied housing only increasing by 2.4 percent (Table A).

According to an October 2018 survey from Freddie Mac, 78 percent of renters believe renting is more affordable than owning. Across all generations, reasons for renting include housing shortages, rising home prices, remaining fear after the last market crash, ability to pick up and move and a desire to live closer to work. Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2017 American Community Survey published in the Fall of 2018, Statistically Speaking details the changing profiles of the renter versus the homeowner.

Household Formation

With a large portion of the population aging to 65 and over, American household demographics have shifted in the seven years 2010 to 2017 since the last recession. The 65 plus age range now comprises over 25 percent of households in the United States (Table B). Ages 25 to 64 that made up 75 percent of households in 2010 have dropped to 70.8 percent in 2017.

Total household formations increased only 4.8 percent since 2010 as Millennials have been slow to enter the housing market, either as renters or owners. At the same time, as Baby Boomers have poured into the older age groups, the 65 and over group jumped 23.4 percent. Household formations for ages 25 to 44 slowed to a negative growth down 1.0 percent from 2010 to 2017, while ages 45 to 64 increased slightly by 1.4 percent (Table C).

For the furniture and home furnishings industry, as the Baby Boomers continue to age, their purchasing power will lessen significantly over the next 10 years. Table D shows the median household income of each age group in 2017. Not surprisingly, ages 45 to 64 have the highest median household income at $72,443, while ages 25 to 44 is 9 percent less at $65,879. The aging Boomers over 65 have median household incomes of $43,735.

Owner-occupied vs. Renter-occupied

As expected, renter-occupied housing leans toward younger age groups with 8.6 of all renters under the age of 25. This includes many rentals across college campuses and young adults just starting out. Discounting these young renters and looking only at the over 25 age groups, apartment rentals are increasingly growing into a broader mix of old and young. For households age 25 years and older in 2017, about half of all renters were age 45 and over. This compares to 75 percent of owner-occupied housing (Table E).

Comparing the change in number of owner-occupied units to renter-occupied units over seven years, renter households went from 34.6 percent of total housing units to 36.1 percent - increasing 3.7 million units from 39.7 million to 43.4 million households (Table F).

As would be expected, families contribute to the higher average number of occupants in owner-occupied households, but the difference is not significant compared to renter units. Owner-occupied units in 2017 had an average household size of 2.72 persons, while renters had a household size of 2.51. As more single people have turned to renting, the majority of homeownership is narrowing to mainly families. (Table G).

As would be expected renter households have a greater tendency to contain only one occupant compared to owner-occupied units, 37.1 percent of renters versus 22.7 percent of owners. But over 35 percent of both renter and owner owned units have three or more occupants (Table H).

One of the biggest differences in renter and owner households is that owner-owned residences are primarily married couple families, 60.1 percent compared to 27 percent of renter housing. Likewise, almost half (48.2 percent) of renter households are nonfamily and unrelated individuals compared to only 26.8 percent of owner residences (Table I).

In addition to increasingly limited new housing construction, the housing industry is facing a future where over half of all owner and renter occupied units are approaching 40 years old. Between 2000 and 2009 new housing construction began to diminish and completely stall due to the market crash. Although renter-occupied units were in high demand during and after the Great Recession, apartment construction failed to pick up and was only 10.9 percent of all units during the same time period. Since the recession ended in 2009, only 5.1 percent of all owner-occupied homes and 5.6 percent of all renter units have been newly built (Table J).

The combination of Millennials slow to form households (renting or buying) and Boomers aging rapidly has significant implications on the furniture industry going forward. With the job market improvements, it appears that though they have a lot of catching up to do, Millennials are poised to make their mark on the home furnishings industry just as the Baby Boomers will be lessening their hold over the next 10 years. There are some signs many will retreat to the suburbs like their parents to own homes and raise families. Others, whether or not they delay marriage, have grown to like the freedom and convenience of apartment living and are a growing segment. Both groups will challenge the marketing efforts of retailers in the future.

In an upcoming article of Statistically Speaking we will expand on the renter/owner profile and look at the economics of these renters and homeowners and how much they are really paying in monthly costs compared to their incomes.

Statistically Speaking: Millennials Gain Share of Consumer Spending

December 11, 2018   by HFBusiness Staff in Business Strategy, Industry   

In 2017, Baby Boomers still had the highest number of households representing 34.4 percent of consumer units, compared to 26.8 percent for Generation X, and 25.1 percent for Millennials (Table A). Although Millennials are inching closer to Generation X in consumer units, the percent of all consumer spending is still over 10 percentage points higher for Gen Xers and almost 15 higher for Baby Boomers. After years of Baby Boomers controlling the majority of furniture and bedding spending, the market has now spread to Generation X and Millennials, who combined account for 56.9 percent.

As shown in Table B, Millennials have entered into adulthood and continued to form households – growing their share of consumer units. At 25.1 percent in 2017, Millennials percent of consumer units has jumped 2.2 points in just one year, while the older generations (including Generation X) decrease.

In 2017, U.S. households spent $7.8 trillion in the U.S. economy with Baby Boomers controlling 36.1 percent of all total consumer expenditures, followed by Generation X at 32.3 percent. While Millennials still control only 21.4 percent due to lower average household incomes and still smaller numbers, this generation increased its share of total spending by 3.9 percentage points 2014 to 2017 – up from 17.5 percent in 2014. On the flip side, both Generation X and Baby Boomers have decreased share as numbers rise for Millennials (Table C).

For furniture and bedding expenditures, Millennials continue to step up to spend more of their income on home furnishings than any other generation. While they still control only 24.6 percent of industry sales, the share has increased each year from 20.1 percent in 2014. Gen Xers have slipped in control down to 32.3 percent, most likely due to the smaller size of the generation, but remain close to Baby Boomers’ 34.3 percent (Table D). As Baby Boomers age out of the furniture industry, the influence of Gen Xers and Millennials will continue to grow.

The Consumer Expenditure Survey estimates mean/average consumer unit income per generation, as opposed to median income. As shown in Table E, Gen Xers have experienced the highest average income (before taxes) over the last four years – topping at $95,168 per household in 2016, the highest mean household income of any generation in history. Even with a slight dip from 2016 to $95,032 in 2017, average income for Generation X has increased 12.8 percent since 2014. Although Millennial households earned, on average, 54.2 percent less than Generation X and 28.1 percent less than Baby Boomers in 2017, average income among Millennials has increased 21.1 percent over the last four years and will continue to increase as younger Millennials enter the workforce and form households.

While mean (average) income, which differs from median income and is usually more affected by unequal distribution and tilts toward the top, shows a downturn for all generations from 2016 to 2017, the median income (middle point) from the government’s sister survey, the Current Population Survey, paints a different picture. During the same year, median household income increased 4.0 percent – from $59,039 to $61,372 per household but only 1.8 percent in real dollars. Median income estimates are not yet available at the generational level.

Although the Baby Boomer and Generation X households still earn considerably more than Millennials, the percent of total U.S. income is shifting each year in a positive direction for Millennials compared to older generations. Since 2015, Generation X has decreased its share of total income alongside Baby Boomers, while Millennials continue to grow. Income from Millennials now account for 21 percent of total U.S. income compared to 16.2 percent in 2014 (Table F).

With the highest income and an average age of 44.3, Gen Xers are the industry’s prime consumers (Table G). Now an average age of 60.2, many Baby Boomers have retired or are preparing to retire, while the average Millennial is yet to reach 30 with many earning years ahead. In fact, Millennials have now surpassed Gen Xers in the number of individuals in the U.S. workforce.

The data continues to confirm that Millennials are the most educated generation. In 2017, 73 percent of Millennials were college educated versus 70 percent of Gen Xers and 65 percent of Baby Boomers (Table H).

With higher wages and more disposable income, Generation X has consistently spent more money per household on furniture expenditures in the last four years. Mapping the CEX to the government’s national accounts through Personal Consumption Expenditures shows Generation X spent on average of $993 in 2017 on furniture and bedding which is 21 percent higher than Baby Boomers and 23 percent higher than Millennials. However, Millennial households have rapidly increased their spending – jumping an average of 6 percent a year from 2014 to 2017 (Table I).

Where do different Generations spend money?

Age and generation greatly affect what consumer items people buy and the share of a consumer’s total expenditures allotted for those items. Figure 3 illustrates a few major consumer items bought by each generation and which ones spend a higher percentage of its expenditures on those items.

As housing is a major expenditure for all consumers, Millennials are spending the most (22.5 percent) of their income on rent or mortgage payments. However, as a whole, consumers spent a smaller percentage of their total expenditures on home mortgages in 2017 compared to 2016. As they age, many Baby Boomers are paying off mortgages and simultaneously becoming the largest consumers of home maintenance, repairs and insurance.

Millennials spent more of their income eating out (6.3 percent) than any other generation, while a family-oriented Generation X spends a higher share of their dollars on entertainment compared to other generations (5.8 percent).

Vehicles and apparel were bigger ticket items in 2017 for Millennials and both Gen Xers and Millennials spent the same percentage (2.1 percent) on cellular phones and services. Not surprisingly, Baby Boomers control much of the healthcare spending, averaging 9.4 percent of their consumer spending. Down from 3.4 percent in 2016, Millennials spent less of their money on education in 2017, possibly due to an increasing availability of jobs.

Furniture spending among Millennials in 2017 bodes well for the future of the furniture industry. While each year, Millennials control a greater percentage of industry sales, they also spend a higher percentage (0.9 percent) of income on furniture than any other generation. Paired with the growing wealth of Gen Xers, the furniture industry should continue to thrive. For example, as Millennials continue to find jobs, form households, and increase wages, a 10 percent increase in spending on furniture would add another $2.6 billion to the industry.

Statistically Speaking – The Changing Retail Landscape

November 7, 2018   by HFBusiness Staff in Business Strategy, Industry   

The U.S. became over-stored in many channels during the 1990’s and early 2000’s as developers kept building shopping centers and companies continued opening retail outlets. The Great Recession was the initial economic event to impact the retail landscape, especially for furniture and home furnishings stores as the housing and mortgage crisis escalated. Then with the influx of internet companies like Amazon and Wayfair, consumers altered spending habits and priorities. Over the last 10 plus years, dramatic shifts in distribution channels have taken place both in sales and in store counts.

Number of Establishments

Some retail channels have fared well during the last ten plus years, but many have not. Many channels peaked in total establishments (store fronts) just before the recession and some continued to grow. Except for electronic shopping, mail-order stores and general merchandise (variety) stores, virtually all other retailers of furniture and home furnishings continue to close stores. Furniture, electronics and appliance stores, and home centers peaked in 2007 and continue to decline. Home furnishings stores have been on a similar path, but did increase in number slightly in 2017. Department stores, warehouse clubs and superstores grew during and after the recession, but have been victimized from the pressure of internet companies and have decreased in number in the last couple of years. (Table A)

The number of furniture stores peaked in 2007 at 27,630 according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since that time brick and mortar furniture stores fell to 22,052 store fronts this year. This 20.2 percent total decline or annual CAGR of 2 percent loss represents the largest decrease of all the key channels 2007 to 2018 Q1. The announced closing of 700 Mattress Firm stores will result in another 3 percent decline. Home furnishings stores did not fare much better falling 19.4 percent in number over the 10 plus years, but showed a slight uptick in the first quarter of this year of 0.3 percent.

During the same time period 2007 to 2018 Q1 pure electronic shopping and mail order houses surged by 100.9 percent or 6.5 percent annual growth.

Warehouse stores and supercenters (i.e. Costco, Wal-Mart, and Target) peaked in number two years ago in 2016 at 6,073 locations and have gradually closed 1.1 percent of the stores over the last 15 months. Department stores (i.e. Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Kohl’s, TJ Maxx) as a group also showed strong signs of post-recession recovery, increasing the number of stores by 22.5 percent (2007 to 2015) before a catastrophic closing of 14.5 percent of stores in just over two years. Electronics and appliances stores, the largest distribution channel in number, along with home centers (i.e. Home Depot, Lowes’s) continued to remove stores throughout the recession and after, maintaining an average annual decline of 1 percent and 2 percent, respectively. At one time the electronics and appliances stores totaled 53,343 but now number 45,351 in 2018 Q1. (Table B)

Table C tracks the percent of stores closed from two historical perspectives – (1) 2007 to 2012 during the recession and subsequent slow recovery years, and (2) 2012 to 2018 during economic recovery and high growth. During the recession and the immediate recovery years, furniture stores and home furnishings stores shuttered more locations as a percent of total than any other in the key retail furniture groups, closing stores at an annual rate of 3.8 percent over those five years. Meanwhile home furnishings stores closed 3.5 percent of locations each year 2007 to 2012. But these two primary channels took their hits early due to the housing and mortgage crises as did home centers. During the last five years furniture and home furnishings stores lost less than 1 percent of its outlets annually. Meanwhile home centers closed 2.2 percent of stores annually in the five-year recessionary/recovery period and continued to lose 1.2 percent annually 2012 to 2018Q1.

Other retail channels continued to grow during the early recession and post period or had minimal store closings, but have closed stores in recent years. These include department stores and electronics and appliances retailers. The only retailers to continue opening stores were warehouse clubs and superstores, general merchandise stores, and electronic shopping and mail-order houses (non store retailers).

Retail Sales

During the recovery period from 2012 forward, all furniture and home furnishings distribution channels grew in sales, despite store closings, with the exception of electronics and appliance stores and department stores (Table C).

Retail sales from electronic shopping and mail-order houses catapulted 131.3 percent from the peak of the recession in 2009 to 2017, but furniture stores and home furnishings stores experienced a healthy growth in retail sales, increasing by 23 percent and 21 percent from 2012 to 2017.

Both furniture stores and home furnishings stores’ sales have grown a yearly average of 4 percent in the past five years. Warehouse clubs and superstores have slowed momentum of sales in the last five years, but are still growing an average of 2.6 percent each year (Table E).

The net effect, especially for furniture, is that even though industry sales slowed and stores shuttered, the ones left standing had higher sales and continued to increase their sales per store, as shown in Table F. The average annual sales per store for furniture stores climbed steadily from $1.9 million in 2009 to $2.9 million in 2018 YTD – jumping 52.6 percent. Home centers have also benefitted from the net effect, increasing their sales per store by 73.7 percent during the same time period, mostly likely as smaller stores have closed.

Many have labeled the next few years a “Retail Apocalypse” as total retail chains in varied product areas are projected to exit the market and existing retailers pare down their stores in number and in size. Some predict entire malls will continue to close. However, furniture still remains one of the products where many consumers still like to “kick the tires” before purchase. And despite the store closings, retailers are finding ways to survive and perhaps re-gain some market share.

Statistically Speaking: Upsetting the Balance of Trade U.S. versus Canada

October 23, 2018   by HFBusiness Staff in Business Strategy, Industry   

Directly impacting the furniture industry is a Canadian imposed 10 percent tariff on U.S. upholstery and mattresses coming into its country. The Trump Administration insists that imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum, not just to Canada, but Mexico and Euro-Asia as well, is designed to level the playing field and return manufacturing and jobs to America. At press time, the U.S. and Mexico had come to a preliminary agreement to rewrite the old NAFTA pact and Canada was still at the table. (See box insert below).

The Canadian retail indoor furniture industry is about 10 percent the size of the U.S., $9.8 billion CAD compared to $99.8 billion USD(Table A). In addition, the Canadian industry grew more slowly as it recovered from the last recession, 2.9 percent annual growth (CAGR) versus U.S. 4.7 percent for the U.S (Table B).

Given the vast difference in the populations of the two countries it should be noted that Canada relies much more on the furniture industry of the U.S. than vice versa. In 2017 the U.S. exported only slightly more indoor furniture and bedding products to Canada than it imported, finishing the year with $1.77 billion in exports to Canada compared to $1.71 billion in imports from our sister country. However, imports from the U.S. into Canada represent about 23 percent (plus or minus) of the total Canadian indoor furniture industry compared to Canadian imports into the U.S. at about 1.7 percent (Table C).

The furniture and bedding trade gap between the two countries has been narrowing, especially since the recovery began from the last recession. Although U.S. imports of indoor furniture and bedding from Canada have increased by 40 percent in the past seven years, exports are still 4 percent higher and have grown 13 percent from 2010 to 2017 (Table D).

Without a totally renegotiated new deal, about 30 percent of the $1.77 billion USD in indoor furniture and bedding exported by the U.S. to Canada last year would now be subjected to a 10 percent tariff. The two furniture areas targeted by the Canadians are upholstery and mattresses, as shown in Table E. Upholstery accounts for 22.3 percent of U.S. furniture exports, while mattresses account for 6.6 percent.

Last year, Canadian furniture retailers imported $396.3 USD million worth of upholstery from the U.S., which was up from $378.7 million in 2016. Since 2010 U.S. upholstery coming to Canada grew only 4.6 percent. The U.S. is the second largest importer of upholstery into Canada behind China, whose imports were valued at $692.0 million in 2017. Despite the smaller size of mattress exports to Canada, the amount has jumped 84 percent over seven years, increasing from $64.3 million in 2010 to $118.2 million in 2017 (Table F).

Many observers believe the big ticket categories chosen by Canada – upholstery, mattresses, refrigerators, dishwashers and washing machines – were strategically picked to pressure leading members of the U.S. Congress to negotiate what Canada thinks would fairly benefit both countries.

According to an article by Michael J. Knell, Home Goods Online, a Canadian market intelligence firm, “Upholstery is probably on the list because Ashley Furniture Industries is in Wisconsin, the state represented by Paul Ryan, the outgoing Speaker of the House of Representatives. While there is no specific data available, Ashley is believed to be one of the largest single exporters of upholstery in Canada, followed by La-Z-Boy, the publicly-held furniture maker with factories in five states including Missouri, Mississippi and N.C. It closed its only Canadian factory in 2005.”

Knell further indicates that “Mattresses are probably on the list because every TempurPedic mattress sold in North America is manufactured by Tempur Sealy International at their factory in Kentucky, the home state of Mitch McConnell, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate.”

As shown in Figure 1, of all upholstery and mattresses imported into Canada from all countries, the U.S. controls about 31.7 percent of upholstery imports and 51.5 percent of mattresses in Canadian dollars (2017). This data is from the Retail Council of Canada’s International Merchandise Trade Database.

Besides upholstery and mattresses, other home furnishings products are also facing 10 percent tariffs imposed by Canada, most notably major appliances. The U.S. controls about 41 percent of total household appliances imported into Canada, roughly $490.8 million Canadian dollars (Figure 2).

The Canadian tariffs on U.S. products are designed to counter the Trump Administration’s 25 percent steel and aluminum tariffs. While the 10 percent tariff response may seem positive for Canadian manufacturers, according to a report by the Retail Council of Canada (RCC), Canadian consumers are facing two negative impact areas – one direct and the other indirect. The RCC’s report states that “the most immediate direct effect of a tariff is an increase in price to the consumer. But the indirect cost of a tariff increase is often reduced consumer spending.”

The report further states that Canadian consumers will face a crisis of “substitutability” of some consumer goods. With upholstery and mattresses, the problem is that both China and Vietnam face a MFN (Most Favored Nation) tariff of 9.5 percent on furniture, so there is no relief found in shifting product orders away from a 10 percent tariff on U.S. imports to the 9.5 percent on Chinese or Vietnamese imports. The RCC said that while the Canadian furniture industry might be able to meet some of the need, increased demand and the lack of competing tariff-free alternatives is apt to lead to price increases from Canadian sources.

For big ticket items frequently purchased together, like major appliances, the 10 percent tariff could potentially deter purchases altogether. Also, there are no domestic sources of supply for appliances, so unlike most of the other goods, retailers would be wholly dependent on sources in Mexico and Asia. The RCC report goes on to point out that “with Mexico being the only plausible source of a tariff-free supply of major appliances, prices from that source will most likely increase”.

The Trump Administration is determined to “level the playing field” for U.S. manufacturer’s claiming the NAFTA agreement has been a bad deal for the U.S. But history has shown that trade wars tend to hurt consumers on both sides of the border. As the final renegotiation of the NAFTA agreement makes its way through Congress, trade between Canada and the U.S. will either be healthier for the two countries or will further sour relations.

Statistically Speaking: Low Housing Inventories and Building Permits Hitting Some Markets Harder

September 7, 2018   by HFBusiness Staff in Business Strategy, Industry   

Once a problem faced mainly by big cities like San Francisco and New York, the demand for housing is far outweighing construction in both big and smaller-sized cities. Inventories are low almost everywhere impacting furniture and home furnishings purchases. Table A shows the downturn in homes for sale from 2011 when the housing market bust was in full swing to 2018 (Q2 YTD). During that period inventories among all metropolitan areas fell 56 percent. Among MSAs with housing unit populations over 500,000 inventories this year dropped below 1.0 home for sale per 100 households. As the economy and housing market began to improve, the table shows the slight upswing in inventories in 2015, but a continual decline since. Note: Homes for sale include both single-family homes and multi-family condominiums.

Table B graphically shows the top 5 states with lowest housing inventories and Figure 1 expands that graphic to a list of the top 10. California leads the way with only 0.44 homes for sale per 100 households, followed by District of Columbia with 0.47 and Massachusetts with 0.53. Washington State had the most dramatic decreases – inventory dropping 68 percent from 2011 to 2018 Q2 YTD.

While housing inventory has fluctuated among the states with the highest ratio of homes for sale, no state has maintained above a ratio of 2.0 homes for sale per 100 households through June of this year. At the highest, Vermont has 1.6 homes for sale per 100 households – down from 2.4 in 2015 (Table C and Figure 2).

Figure 3 shows the how the largest metro areas have been affected by the housing shortage and highlights the problems being faced, especially by our big cities. The top three largest markets with the tightest homes for sale inventories are located in the West -- San Francisco, Seattle, and Los Angeles. And by far, the Seattle area has been hit the hardest – inventory plummeting 76.7 percent down to a ratio of 0.34 homes for sale per 100 households in the past seven years. Metro areas with high inventories in 2011 – Atlanta and Miami – have fallen 62.9 percent and 44.5 percent, but both markets are still in better shape than other major cities.

New Residential Building Permits

While many metro areas are suffering with tightening housing inventories, some areas are having better luck with building permits and new housing construction in an attempt to turn the tide. Furniture retailers should pay close attention to the markets where building is picking up and where building is slowing. Overall building permits grew 6.6 percent in the U.S. 2017 Q2 to 2018 Q2 annualized. Interestingly, it is the smaller markets where building permits have increased the most especially for single-family units. The larger MSAs, 500,000 to 1.5 Million and Over 1.5 million housing units, had the smallest growth over last year, 4.8 percent and 5.8 percent respectively. Mid-size range 250,000 to 500,000 increased the most at 9.4 percent, while the smallest range available (50,000 to 100,000) had the second highest growth at 9.3 percent. of 4.6 (Figure 4).

Looking at state increases in building permits this year, Table D shows that Hawaii had the highest growth in residential building permits since the second quarter of last year —jumping 32.6 percent followed closely by New Hampshire at 30.9 percent. Idaho, Utah, and North Carolina all had over a 20 percent increase. Note: Data includes all states.

Building permits declined in many states. Montana had the lowest growth in residential building permits declining 23.7 percent this year compared to 2017, followed by Mississippi, down 20.5 percent, and Illinois falling 15.7 percent (Table E).

Among the largest metro areas (over 1.5 million housing units), Houston leads the way with 21 percent growth last year. Boston and Atlanta both have over 15 percent growth, while Phoenix and Los Angeles have over 10 percent. By far, Chicago and Detroit are experiencing the worst negative growth in residential building – down 23.8 and 23.9 percent from 2017 Q2 to 2018 Q2 (Table F).

Some smaller MSAs made the list of metro areas with the largest unit growth in residential building permits with Houston, TX topping the list at 5,032, followed by Orlando, FL with 4,319. Certainly Hurricane Harvey last year is contributing to some of Houston’s housing permit growth. Charlotte, N.C. is third on the list with 3,788 permits. Phoenix, AZ, Austin, TX, and Salt Lake City, UT are also smaller cities that are showing growth in residential building (Table G).

For single family units only, Phoenix leads the way with 1,509 building permits added from 2017 Q2 to 2018 Q2, followed by Santa Rosa, CA with 1,007. Denver, Charlotte, and Atlanta all had above an 800 unit growth over the same time period (Table H).

From the 2^nd quarter of 2017 to the 2^nd quarter of 2018, Houston tops off the list for MSAs with the largest growth of multi-family units at 4,525, followed by Orlando with 3,767 and Charlotte with 2,892. Los Angeles, Atlanta, and San Diego all exceeded 1,500 units over the same year (Table I).

Furniture retailers in these high and low housing growth areas are paying attention to current housing inventories and future building growth in their specific marketing areas. Sluggish building and tight markets often equate to slower industry sales.