7 ms·

"If “build more” was going to bring prices down and stabilize the system, we wouldn’t be seeing these mixed signals." Where have we seen anything close to 'bui

"If “build more” was going to bring prices down and stabilize the system, we wouldn’t be seeing these mixed signals." Where have we seen anything close to 'build more'? Regulations in many major cities have prevented building more for decades and I haven't seen any loosening of these regulations (they were only increased during the Biden administration). "Prices are softening. Delinquencies are rising. Builders are walking. And instead of asking what this reveals about the fragility of our system, we’re preparing to paper over it—again—with liquidity, leverage, and euphemisms. " This is the plan from the potential future mayor of New York: Builders and investors will flee as a result of price controls and home value will plummet. Detroit is a good example of what happens in the long term when investors and businesses flee the city. I lived there for 20+ years and it still has never really recovered.

atherton33 1y ago
Cambridge MA just had a major shift on zoning towards "build more" in Q1. It will be an interesting natural experiment to watch. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2025/02/11/cambridge-eliminates-single-family-zoning-in-historic-move/ https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2025/02/11/cambridge-el...
kasey_junk 1y ago
It’s not just regulation either. Housing companies are not building as much as they did prior to 2008, which had substantially the same regulatory environment in most places. The idea that we’ve started building enough to bring prices down is a non-starter.
- PretzelFisch 1y ago
  Why would the builder want to build enough to let prices drop? They seem to play a lot of games to give buyers incentives that do not lower the sales price.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    Well because they hold inventory. If homes didn't have a year long build pipeline with another 6 months+ holding for sale buffer they'd probably care a lot less. Otherwise a 10% drop in prices can lead to their bankruptcy.
    - avmich 1y ago
      Oh, that's good. Those are institutionalized builders who hold inventory. Let them go. Let builders who are paid workers to do the job, whose income doesn't depend on house price but is described in contract between owner, bank and the builder. What's wrong with such a schema?
      - kasey_junk 1y ago
        Most houses are not built 1:1 with the land underneath it. Builders buy larger plots and then use it to make multiple houses. So a builder would need to enter at least the land risk in your scheme still. Then if they had to wait for each plot and future house sale to occur before pricing the sale they couldn't get economies of scale. Effectively your scheme turns every house into a more complicated bespoke futures contract with more parties involved. There maybe benefits to that but it doesn’t seem like a system designed to get more houses built.
        avmich 1y ago
        It surely wins if the other side just walks away from the problem.
        pixl97 1y ago
        Only if there isn't still demand for more houses or a growing population. Otherwise houses won't get built and the prices of existing houses will go even higher.
        pixl97 1y ago
        >Builders buy larger plots and then use it to make multiple houses. Most people that had their house built decades ago don't realize the requirements for things like runoff control in modern subdivisions. In the past your water was someone else's problem, which as populations grew lead to some people getting screwed when flood waters reached new heights because of all the new impermeable land. Water impounding and runoff control are very hard to build by an individual unless they have a large chunk of land (which acts as the sink). Any dense new SFH typically ends up in a MUD that provides all the utilities and water controls and this is insanely expensive unless distributed across a large number of units. If we want to control housing prices it won't be by building more SFH. It will be by building more dense style housing.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
drewcon 1y ago
Austin. They’ve built more and prices have declined.
nancyminusone 1y ago
Where I live, there are about a dozen new housing development sites. I pass by 3 of them on my way into work, and my drive is only 10 minutes long. I've lived here 15 years and haven't seen anything like it. Someone somewhere must think it's worthwhile. Disclaimer: I don't live in a major city, I live just outside a minor one. It's all condos.
lenerdenator 1y ago
> Detroit is a good example of what happens in the long term when investors and businesses flee the city Let's be honest: it's a good example of what happens when some guys with a lot of money find a cheaper place to make something. Same with St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Camden, Gary, and so on.
- hollywood_court 1y ago
  Yep. They moved their operations to the south where they don’t have to worry about unions or those pesky worker’s right. I experienced this first hand when I worked for a Korean company that supplied parts to Hyundai and Kia. They sent line workers from Detroit to train people in Alabama. My coworkers in Alabama just could not believe the Detroit folks when they talked about how much money they earned. We were being paid half as much in Alabama. And our area of Alabama had a much higher cost of living compared to Detroit and its suburbs.
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    Or out of the country completely.
    - hollywood_court 1y ago
      That's definitely what many of the 'American' automobile brands have been doing.
  - octopoc 1y ago
    Sounds like an improvement TBH. The quality of life improves for people in Alabama, and the company can pay people less. Sort of like the economic argument for offshoring people. The only people losing are the people in Detroit.
    - hollywood_court 1y ago
      Not exactly. Everyone on the line in Alabama had to have second jobs because the pay was not sustainable for our area. Not to mention the vacations, extra benefits, and other protections the Alabama workers didn't receive compared to their peers in Detroit. So the company makes more money by moving their operations to the south where they exploit their workers without interference from the government.
soylentbeige 1y ago
Mass upzoning in Auckland, New Zealand resulted in a rent reduction of 22-35% for three-bedroom apartments and 14-22% for two-bedroom apartments https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-research/research-institutes-and-centres/Economic-Policy-Centre--EPC-/WP016.pdf https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-researc...
micromacrofoot 1y ago
The problem is that housing is a major investment vehicle, people in these cities always complain about what's going to happen to their property values so they prefer exclusionary zoning. Developers have a hell of a time building in these areas even once they get zoning variances, because abutters will show up and complain about every single detail and try to make the property as small and unprofitable as possible. You start off with a 12 unit building with no parking and you end up with a 6 unit building with 12 parking spots in a garage that no one uses. There's one instance in my neighborhood where the city and developer have been meeting with residents over the course of a year to try and come to an agreement on what should be built. There's just a derelict single-family house on the lot.
- kiba 1y ago
  The problem is speculative investing, not making a profit per se. If your incentive is to prevent improvement of your community, then you're going to prevent making it worthwhile for anyone to come in and invest their effort. That could often means deterring developers, for example.
Aurornis 1y ago
> Where have we seen anything close to 'build more'? Regulations in many major cities have prevented building more for decades and I haven't seen any loosening of these regulations (they were only increased during the Biden administration). Housing prices are high everywhere, not just major cities. Interestingly, in my state we have a lot of land for building houses if you drive to nearby cities. Some people uproot themselves and move 30-45 minutes away so they can have a much bigger, nicer, newer house. Most often when they start a family. If you’re willing to move an hour away you can even get these big new houses for very affordable prices. Many people don’t want that, though. They want to live in the city. So these big new houses remain cheap, while housing in the city remains expensive. It seems like an easy solution would be to start knocking down houses in the city and building tall, dense buildings. Except that is happening, and the same people don’t want those either. Even condo complexes are having a hard time selling units. What people here continue to want is the one thing that cannot be scaled: Full houses of their own that are in the city. No amount of demolishing buildings and building density will fix that, because it’s not what they want. I was completely wrong in guessing that COVID and remote work would help housing prices by allowing people to move anywhere. Most of the people I knew who relocated due to remote work took the opportunity to move toward cities where their friends lived, not to cheaper areas. I think we must continue to build, though. Eventually new cities and interesting locations will be bootstrapped. I think housing prices in popular areas will remain stubbornly high, though.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Housing prices are high everywhere, not just major cities.... So these big new houses remain cheap, while housing in the city remains expensive. ?
- nemomarx 1y ago
  If the condos aren't selling, shouldn't we see the prices go down? There's gotta be an equilibrium at some very cheap rent for them
  - spicybbq 1y ago
    In the long run, yeah. In the short run, owners can carry unsold inventory for quite a while, hoping conditions improve, before there is pressure to do something (e.g. a balloon payment).
indymike 1y ago
> "If “build more” was going to bring prices down and stabilize the system, we wouldn’t be seeing these mixed signals." Bringing prices down is usually a losing idea with existing asset holders. Even a financially strapped homeowner does not want the price of her/his home to go down. Politically, this is a complete non-starter. Also, appreciating home values serve as a very strong way to attract talent to a city. > "Prices are softening. Delinquencies are rising. Builders are walking. What do you expect. Why would a homeowner send 1-2 paychecks a month to pay interest into an investment that is losing value? Why would a builder start making an asset that will be worth less than when they started building?
- avmich 1y ago
  > Why would a homeowner send 1-2 paychecks... Can't the asset holder - the homeowner in this case - get rid of the asset which stopped performing? Why such a strange financial behavior? If the houses are financials - why not to deal with them as such?
  - indymike 1y ago
    That would be rational for the home owner, but for many losing money on the biggest investment they have is not really practical. Losing value on a percentage taxed asset is not really practical for govenrment. Also - the mortgage lender may not allow a sale at a lower than loan value price. The result is foreclosure, and even more loss in value.
    - aprilthird2021 1y ago
      Allowing our cities to become unlivable, inhospitable, and overall crazy places to accommodate letting people have enormous gains on an asset they do barely any work to improve was not practical but we did it for many years and it's time to stop.
      - indymike 1y ago
        > letting people have enormous gains on an asset they do barely any work to improve was not practical but we did it for many years and it's time to stop This makes little sense. In a democracy, it will be hard to get people to vote against their own best interest.
femiagbabiaka 1y ago
I’ve never seen a comment that so reflects that the writer did not read the article as this. There are 3 or 4 examples quoted in TFA, all cited.
freejazz 1y ago
> prevented building more for decades What planet do people live on? Go to any neighborhood in NYC and you are going to see tons of construction.
- sim7c00 1y ago
  i am sure lots of ppl on this planet dont have the option to go around NYC to check out the construction. for various reasons.... also, lots of construction does not equal fixing lack of housing. it has to keep up with and overtake new ppl moving into the region, which often times it does not (so it has no impact on prices or availability, just population growth...). idk about NYC specifics ofc. but thats how it work in my country. they build new houses, new ppl come in. still nothing available generally, and everything about 2x price over 10 years while income doesnt rise to compensate. there is a lot of constructions of homes here too. but for the wrong reasons and with the wrong intensity.
  - freejazz 1y ago
    People are building plenty here. The poster said building was being prevented. That's not the case.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
> Where have we seen anything close to 'build more'? It's considerably easier to build in Canadian cities than most American cities. Not easy, but easier. Over the past ten years Canadian cities have seen incredible growth, due to high immigration levels. Toronto is the fastest growing city in North America. Vancouver isn't far behind. Yet Vancouver has seen flat housing prices over the last 10 years. [1] (Though flat at a very high level). Toronto housing prices are down 5% in the last 12 months. 1: https://realestatecoalharbour.com/blog/vancouver-house-price-history-chart/ https://realestatecoalharbour.com/blog/vancouver-house-price... 2: https://www.nesto.ca/home-buying/toronto-housing-market-outlook/ https://www.nesto.ca/home-buying/toronto-housing-market-outl...
- gilbetron 1y ago
  Median houses in Vancouver are $2-4m ?? Wow.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Suburbs are about $1M CAD, ($750K USD).
- 9rx 1y ago
  > Toronto is the fastest growing city in North America. Wouldn't that be more apt to be Langford? https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-x/2021001/98-200-x2021001-eng.cfm https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98... East Gwillimbury, the fastest growing municipality in Canada, is within Toronto CMA. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of? But Toronto CMA is not a city, neither legally nor colloquially. Its mostly rural area. Growth in the City of Toronto is relatively slow.
tenthirtyam 1y ago
In Ireland, politicians (make appearances of) are making a lot of noise about building more houses to address the severe shortage of housing supply (and consequent runaway house price inflation). However, my take is that the root of the problem is exactly what the author here describes, to wit, the minimum housing a person can buy is (for the most part) a semi-detached two- or two-and-a-half-bedroom* house on two floors. There are precious few one-bedroom apartments or anything similar on the market, meaning that single persons entering the market are competing with couples or young families. I don't understand the details but I'm told the origin of this is that regulations have rendered apartments of any size unprofitable to build (anyone with more insight here?). Pretty much the only housing Ireland gets are sprawling suburban housing estates. I'm reminded of this graphic, 100 houses Vs 100 apartments [1]. * By 2½ bedrooms I mean two bedrooms plus a very small "box room" barely big enough for a single bed and a small wardrobe. Frequently used as either a storage room or small home office. [1] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/78/f5/94/78f594ebb9216e50e39674e623315225.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/78/f5/94/78f594ebb9216e50e396...

atherton33 1y ago

Cambridge MA just had a major shift on zoning towards "build more" in Q1. It will be an interesting natural experiment to watch. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2025/02/11/cambridge-eliminates-single-family-zoning-in-historic-move/ https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2025/02/11/cambridge-el...

kasey_junk 1y ago

It’s not just regulation either. Housing companies are not building as much as they did prior to 2008, which had substantially the same regulatory environment in most places. The idea that we’ve started building enough to bring prices down is a non-starter.

PretzelFisch 1y ago
Why would the builder want to build enough to let prices drop? They seem to play a lot of games to give buyers incentives that do not lower the sales price.
- pixl97 1y ago
  Well because they hold inventory. If homes didn't have a year long build pipeline with another 6 months+ holding for sale buffer they'd probably care a lot less. Otherwise a 10% drop in prices can lead to their bankruptcy.
  - avmich 1y ago
    Oh, that's good. Those are institutionalized builders who hold inventory. Let them go. Let builders who are paid workers to do the job, whose income doesn't depend on house price but is described in contract between owner, bank and the builder. What's wrong with such a schema?
    - kasey_junk 1y ago
      Most houses are not built 1:1 with the land underneath it. Builders buy larger plots and then use it to make multiple houses. So a builder would need to enter at least the land risk in your scheme still. Then if they had to wait for each plot and future house sale to occur before pricing the sale they couldn't get economies of scale. Effectively your scheme turns every house into a more complicated bespoke futures contract with more parties involved. There maybe benefits to that but it doesn’t seem like a system designed to get more houses built.
      - avmich 1y ago
        It surely wins if the other side just walks away from the problem.
        pixl97 1y ago
        Only if there isn't still demand for more houses or a growing population. Otherwise houses won't get built and the prices of existing houses will go even higher.
      - pixl97 1y ago
        >Builders buy larger plots and then use it to make multiple houses. Most people that had their house built decades ago don't realize the requirements for things like runoff control in modern subdivisions. In the past your water was someone else's problem, which as populations grew lead to some people getting screwed when flood waters reached new heights because of all the new impermeable land. Water impounding and runoff control are very hard to build by an individual unless they have a large chunk of land (which acts as the sink). Any dense new SFH typically ends up in a MUD that provides all the utilities and water controls and this is insanely expensive unless distributed across a large number of units. If we want to control housing prices it won't be by building more SFH. It will be by building more dense style housing.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

drewcon 1y ago

Austin. They’ve built more and prices have declined.

nancyminusone 1y ago

Where I live, there are about a dozen new housing development sites. I pass by 3 of them on my way into work, and my drive is only 10 minutes long. I've lived here 15 years and haven't seen anything like it. Someone somewhere must think it's worthwhile. Disclaimer: I don't live in a major city, I live just outside a minor one. It's all condos.

lenerdenator 1y ago

> Detroit is a good example of what happens in the long term when investors and businesses flee the city Let's be honest: it's a good example of what happens when some guys with a lot of money find a cheaper place to make something. Same with St. Louis, Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Camden, Gary, and so on.

hollywood_court 1y ago
Yep. They moved their operations to the south where they don’t have to worry about unions or those pesky worker’s right. I experienced this first hand when I worked for a Korean company that supplied parts to Hyundai and Kia. They sent line workers from Detroit to train people in Alabama. My coworkers in Alabama just could not believe the Detroit folks when they talked about how much money they earned. We were being paid half as much in Alabama. And our area of Alabama had a much higher cost of living compared to Detroit and its suburbs.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  Or out of the country completely.
  - hollywood_court 1y ago
    That's definitely what many of the 'American' automobile brands have been doing.
- octopoc 1y ago
  Sounds like an improvement TBH. The quality of life improves for people in Alabama, and the company can pay people less. Sort of like the economic argument for offshoring people. The only people losing are the people in Detroit.
  - hollywood_court 1y ago
    Not exactly. Everyone on the line in Alabama had to have second jobs because the pay was not sustainable for our area. Not to mention the vacations, extra benefits, and other protections the Alabama workers didn't receive compared to their peers in Detroit. So the company makes more money by moving their operations to the south where they exploit their workers without interference from the government.

soylentbeige 1y ago

Mass upzoning in Auckland, New Zealand resulted in a rent reduction of 22-35% for three-bedroom apartments and 14-22% for two-bedroom apartments https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-research/research-institutes-and-centres/Economic-Policy-Centre--EPC-/WP016.pdf https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-researc...

micromacrofoot 1y ago

The problem is that housing is a major investment vehicle, people in these cities always complain about what's going to happen to their property values so they prefer exclusionary zoning. Developers have a hell of a time building in these areas even once they get zoning variances, because abutters will show up and complain about every single detail and try to make the property as small and unprofitable as possible. You start off with a 12 unit building with no parking and you end up with a 6 unit building with 12 parking spots in a garage that no one uses. There's one instance in my neighborhood where the city and developer have been meeting with residents over the course of a year to try and come to an agreement on what should be built. There's just a derelict single-family house on the lot.

kiba 1y ago
The problem is speculative investing, not making a profit per se. If your incentive is to prevent improvement of your community, then you're going to prevent making it worthwhile for anyone to come in and invest their effort. That could often means deterring developers, for example.

Aurornis 1y ago

> Where have we seen anything close to 'build more'? Regulations in many major cities have prevented building more for decades and I haven't seen any loosening of these regulations (they were only increased during the Biden administration). Housing prices are high everywhere, not just major cities. Interestingly, in my state we have a lot of land for building houses if you drive to nearby cities. Some people uproot themselves and move 30-45 minutes away so they can have a much bigger, nicer, newer house. Most often when they start a family. If you’re willing to move an hour away you can even get these big new houses for very affordable prices. Many people don’t want that, though. They want to live in the city. So these big new houses remain cheap, while housing in the city remains expensive. It seems like an easy solution would be to start knocking down houses in the city and building tall, dense buildings. Except that is happening, and the same people don’t want those either. Even condo complexes are having a hard time selling units. What people here continue to want is the one thing that cannot be scaled: Full houses of their own that are in the city. No amount of demolishing buildings and building density will fix that, because it’s not what they want. I was completely wrong in guessing that COVID and remote work would help housing prices by allowing people to move anywhere. Most of the people I knew who relocated due to remote work took the opportunity to move toward cities where their friends lived, not to cheaper areas. I think we must continue to build, though. Eventually new cities and interesting locations will be bootstrapped. I think housing prices in popular areas will remain stubbornly high, though.

zahlman 1y ago
> Housing prices are high everywhere, not just major cities.... So these big new houses remain cheap, while housing in the city remains expensive. ?
nemomarx 1y ago
If the condos aren't selling, shouldn't we see the prices go down? There's gotta be an equilibrium at some very cheap rent for them
- spicybbq 1y ago
  In the long run, yeah. In the short run, owners can carry unsold inventory for quite a while, hoping conditions improve, before there is pressure to do something (e.g. a balloon payment).

indymike 1y ago

> "If “build more” was going to bring prices down and stabilize the system, we wouldn’t be seeing these mixed signals." Bringing prices down is usually a losing idea with existing asset holders. Even a financially strapped homeowner does not want the price of her/his home to go down. Politically, this is a complete non-starter. Also, appreciating home values serve as a very strong way to attract talent to a city. > "Prices are softening. Delinquencies are rising. Builders are walking. What do you expect. Why would a homeowner send 1-2 paychecks a month to pay interest into an investment that is losing value? Why would a builder start making an asset that will be worth less than when they started building?

avmich 1y ago
> Why would a homeowner send 1-2 paychecks... Can't the asset holder - the homeowner in this case - get rid of the asset which stopped performing? Why such a strange financial behavior? If the houses are financials - why not to deal with them as such?
- indymike 1y ago
  That would be rational for the home owner, but for many losing money on the biggest investment they have is not really practical. Losing value on a percentage taxed asset is not really practical for govenrment. Also - the mortgage lender may not allow a sale at a lower than loan value price. The result is foreclosure, and even more loss in value.
  - aprilthird2021 1y ago
    Allowing our cities to become unlivable, inhospitable, and overall crazy places to accommodate letting people have enormous gains on an asset they do barely any work to improve was not practical but we did it for many years and it's time to stop.
    - indymike 1y ago
      > letting people have enormous gains on an asset they do barely any work to improve was not practical but we did it for many years and it's time to stop This makes little sense. In a democracy, it will be hard to get people to vote against their own best interest.

femiagbabiaka 1y ago

I’ve never seen a comment that so reflects that the writer did not read the article as this. There are 3 or 4 examples quoted in TFA, all cited.

freejazz 1y ago

> prevented building more for decades What planet do people live on? Go to any neighborhood in NYC and you are going to see tons of construction.

sim7c00 1y ago
i am sure lots of ppl on this planet dont have the option to go around NYC to check out the construction. for various reasons.... also, lots of construction does not equal fixing lack of housing. it has to keep up with and overtake new ppl moving into the region, which often times it does not (so it has no impact on prices or availability, just population growth...). idk about NYC specifics ofc. but thats how it work in my country. they build new houses, new ppl come in. still nothing available generally, and everything about 2x price over 10 years while income doesnt rise to compensate. there is a lot of constructions of homes here too. but for the wrong reasons and with the wrong intensity.
- freejazz 1y ago
  People are building plenty here. The poster said building was being prevented. That's not the case.

bryanlarsen 1y ago

> Where have we seen anything close to 'build more'? It's considerably easier to build in Canadian cities than most American cities. Not easy, but easier. Over the past ten years Canadian cities have seen incredible growth, due to high immigration levels. Toronto is the fastest growing city in North America. Vancouver isn't far behind. Yet Vancouver has seen flat housing prices over the last 10 years. [1] (Though flat at a very high level). Toronto housing prices are down 5% in the last 12 months. 1: https://realestatecoalharbour.com/blog/vancouver-house-price-history-chart/ https://realestatecoalharbour.com/blog/vancouver-house-price... 2: https://www.nesto.ca/home-buying/toronto-housing-market-outlook/ https://www.nesto.ca/home-buying/toronto-housing-market-outl...

gilbetron 1y ago
Median houses in Vancouver are $2-4m ?? Wow.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Suburbs are about $1M CAD, ($750K USD).
9rx 1y ago
> Toronto is the fastest growing city in North America. Wouldn't that be more apt to be Langford? https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-x/2021001/98-200-x2021001-eng.cfm https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98... East Gwillimbury, the fastest growing municipality in Canada, is within Toronto CMA. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of? But Toronto CMA is not a city, neither legally nor colloquially. Its mostly rural area. Growth in the City of Toronto is relatively slow.

tenthirtyam 1y ago

In Ireland, politicians (make appearances of) are making a lot of noise about building more houses to address the severe shortage of housing supply (and consequent runaway house price inflation). However, my take is that the root of the problem is exactly what the author here describes, to wit, the minimum housing a person can buy is (for the most part) a semi-detached two- or two-and-a-half-bedroom* house on two floors. There are precious few one-bedroom apartments or anything similar on the market, meaning that single persons entering the market are competing with couples or young families. I don't understand the details but I'm told the origin of this is that regulations have rendered apartments of any size unprofitable to build (anyone with more insight here?). Pretty much the only housing Ireland gets are sprawling suburban housing estates. I'm reminded of this graphic, 100 houses Vs 100 apartments [1]. * By 2½ bedrooms I mean two bedrooms plus a very small "box room" barely big enough for a single bed and a small wardrobe. Frequently used as either a storage room or small home office. [1] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/78/f5/94/78f594ebb9216e50e39674e623315225.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/78/f5/94/78f594ebb9216e50e396...