Different Interpretations of the Same Data – Diary of Change num.106
In issue 106 of the Diari del Canvi, we talk about how the same data can generate completely opposite interpretations depending on who analyzes it and with what objective.
We already have the official data after a year of rental market regulation, and beyond the numbers themselves, it’s interesting how conclusions vary depending on who presents them.
It is clear, then, that we are not asking the same questions or going into the same depth of analysis. Remaining superficial may give the appearance of an effective policy in the short term, but the effect may be completely opposite in the medium or long term.
In this sense, the objective of each policy should be clearly explained, as it may be more beneficial for those already in the rental market (favoring permanence), and not as, or not at all, beneficial for those trying to access a rental home (accessibility).
When data is commented on, the success of this policy is based on two key variables.
First, logically, the evolution of prices in regulated areas, and second, a positive balance of supply, stating that the Incasòl security deposit balance has been positive. Up to this point, the data is positive and the policy works—but does it really?
We’ve often talked about accessibility, composed of two variables: price and available supply. Prices are regulated and trending downward, but the available supply? It keeps decreasing quarter after quarter. And today, this is the most limiting factor for accessibility: the lack of available housing.
For example, in Barcelona city, supply dropped by 14.9% from 2023 to 2024 and has continued to fall in the first quarter of 2025.
So how can it be said that regulation does not affect supply? Because supply is discussed based on two different data points: on one hand, new contracts signed, and on the other, the deposit balance.
Accessibility is determined by new contracts signed, which are directly related to available housing being marketed. In contrast, the deposit balance reflects new contracts minus expired ones.
To explain this, we can use a demographic analogy. New contracts are like births, and ended contracts are like deaths. We believe it’s only a matter of time before the deposit balance turns negative: if there are fewer births (falling number of new contracts), no immigration (new investors entering the rental market), we are only sustained because life expectancy increases (average contract duration increases).
Even if the deposit balance remains positive, key questions are:
Who is benefiting from these new regulated contracts? As always, there’s a cascade effect, and those with stronger economic profiles and lower perceived risk are the ones accessing the few available rental homes.
And how do they access the few homes that hit the market? Through increasingly limited and less public channels. In many cases, it’s about personal connections.
So, if we stay at the surface level, everything seems fine and policies appear to work. But if we dig a bit deeper, things are not looking good—possibly worsening (at least in terms of accessibility). With proper analysis, small adjustments to current policies could result in a much better outcome than what we have today.
To conclude, this reflection is just as valid for the 30% rule, the recent ITP changes, the upcoming seasonal rental reforms, and the long list of housing policies that keep being introduced without a deep evaluation of their real consequences.
Guifré Homedes | Managing Director
Did you enjoy this reflection? Share it!
Read more reflections in the “Diari del Canvi”
The Diari del Canvi is an initiative by Amat that emerged in response to the financial crisis that erupted in the summer of 2008 and had a major impact on the real estate market. In that moment of uncertainty, Amat felt the need and conviction to inform its clients, collaborators, and contacts about the events and changes taking place and affecting everyone.
