by Calculated Risk on 8/26/2005 11:02:00 AM

Greenspan spoke this morning at Jackson Hole, Wyoming. This weekend will see many stories on Chairman Greenspan, but here are a few relevant comments (My emphasis added):

The structure of our economy will doubtless change in the years ahead. In particular, our analysis of economic developments almost surely will need to deal in greater detail with balance sheet considerations than was the case in the earlier decades of the postwar period. The determination of global economic activity in recent years has been influenced importantly by capital gains on various types of assets, and the liabilities that finance them. Our forecasts and hence policy are becoming increasingly driven by asset price changes.

The steep rise in the ratio of household net worth to disposable income in the mid-1990s, after a half-century of stability, is a case in point. Although the ratio fell with the collapse of equity prices in 2000, it has rebounded noticeably over the past couple of years, reflecting the rise in the prices of equities and houses.

Whether the currently elevated level of the wealth-to-income ratio will be sustained in the longer run remains to be seen. But arguably, the growing stability of the world economy over the past decade may have encouraged investors to accept increasingly lower levels of compensation for risk. They are exhibiting a seeming willingness to project stability and commit over an ever more extended time horizon.

The lowered risk premiums--the apparent consequence of a long period of economic stability--coupled with greater productivity growth have propelled asset prices higher. The rising prices of stocks, bonds and, more recently, of homes, have engendered a large increase in the market value of claims which, when converted to cash, are a source of purchasing power. Financial intermediaries, of course, routinely convert capital gains in stocks, bonds, and homes into cash for businesses and households to facilitate purchase transactions. The conversions have been markedly facilitated by the financial innovation that has greatly reduced the cost of such transactions.

Thus, this vast increase in the market value of asset claims is in part the indirect result of investors accepting lower compensation for risk. Such an increase in market value is too often viewed by market participants as structural and permanent. To some extent, those higher values may be reflecting the increased flexibility and resilience of our economy. But what they perceive as newly abundant liquidity can readily disappear. Any onset of increased investor caution elevates risk premiums and, as a consequence, lowers asset values and promotes the liquidation of the debt that supported higher prices. This is the reason that history has not dealt kindly with the aftermath of protracted periods of low risk premiums.

by Calculated Risk on 8/26/2005 01:03:00 AM

Bill Maher writes in the LA Times: But don't let me burst your bubble

You don't have to remember history, but you do have to remember Thursday. The bursting of the Nasdaq bubble was only five years ago. People lost a trillion dollars. And here we are today with real estate prices across the country that could aptly be compared to Courtney Love: irrationally high and about to collapse.

I don't want to say there's a housing bubble, but I had a refrigerator delivered this morning and a homeless guy offered me $3 million for the box. Not to burst your bubble, but all bubbles do burst. And we learned this recently. It's not just that grandma was alive the last time it happened. You were alive. Eminem was on the radio. Just like now because, again, it wasn't that long ago.

Enjoy!

by Calculated Risk on 8/25/2005 06:52:00 PM

Floyd Norris, chief financial correspondent of The New York Times, has an interesting take on the housing market:

If housing prices fall, will mortgages cushion the downfall, or make it worse? Put another way, will more overstretched homeowners be forced to sell?

At issue is whether financial innovations that have made it easier for Americans to buy homes have also made the system less stable and more vulnerable to shocks that could drive many of them from their homes, having lost all they invested in them.

Mr. Norris reviews previous housing slowdowns and contrasts housing, bought with mortgages, to stock, bought on margin. I recommend reading his comments.

The interesting and somewhat novel observation is that Mr. Norris believes we can tell, when housing starts to slow down, if it is an ordinary housing slowdown or a possible disaster by whether or not transaction volumes decline significantly for existing home sales.

But if and when a fall comes, watch the volume of home sales, particularly of existing homes. Back in 1978, almost four million sales of such homes were counted by the National Association of Realtors. By 1982, amid recession and rising interest rates, the figure was under two million.
...
If [then number of transactions] falls rapidly, that will be an indication that not much has changed, and the damage is likely to be limited.

But if sales volume stays high, that could indicate that the mortgage innovations are hurting. Then we could see rising numbers of foreclosures as homeowners discover they cannot sell their homes for what they owe but also cannot pay their suddenly higher monthly mortgage bills.

I've been expecting volumes to drop significantly (what Mr. Norris suggests is normal). Of course the "limited damage" would be a slow down in GDP growth or a mild recession.

If volumes stay high while prices drop, Mr. Norris argues we are in for tough times.

by Calculated Risk on 8/25/2005 02:46:00 PM

Reuters quotes Dr. Krugman:

"I'll give you a forecast which might very well be wrong, but I think it will burst in the spring of next year," he said at a derivatives conference in Brazil's winter resort of Campos do Jordao.

"I would be surprised if it doesn't burst in the next three years," he added.

I think it will be sooner rather than later.

Krugman said skyrocketing U.S. housing prices were supported by large -- and somewhat "odd" -- capital inflows from emerging market countries, such as China, which has accumulated huge holdings of U.S. Treasury debt, helping keep long-term interest rates abnormally low.

"Americans pay for their houses with money they borrowed from the Chinese," he said.
...
An expected decline in U.S. housing investment would be part of an economic adjustment process which could include the weakening of the dollar, higher U.S. exports and the reduction of current account deficits in the world's largest economy, Krugman said.

"This is how we would like to see it happening -- smoothly -- but there are many moving parts and they're unlikely to move at the same time," he said. "So it's not going to happen unpainfully."

by Calculated Risk on 8/24/2005 11:25:00 PM

Dr. Duy adds some interesting thoughts today: Another Look at Housing.

Like many others, Dr. Setser, Gen'l Glut, Paul Volcker to name a few, Dr. Duy expresses some concerns:

I was unsettled by the combination of weak durable goods numbers, strong housing numbers, and this morning’s Wall Street Journal piece regarding global capital flows into the US housing market. Like many, I see the need for an eventual rebalancing – a shifting away from consumption and housing and toward investment – of growth in the years ahead.

Dr. Duy than adds some excellent analysis and graphs. I believe the graph showing the relationship between the CA (Current Account, mostly trade deficit) and housing starts is very interesting. Dr. Duy concludes:

All in all, it suggests to me that international factors – specifically, the willingness of foreign investors to place their capital into the US – have a significant place in explaining the consumption binge/CA deficit/low interest rate issue.
...
Of course, the international angle only increases the difficulty of the Fed’s job – the willingness of foreign capital to flow into the US could mean the Fed will end up strangling the non-housing sectors of the economy to keep overall inflation expectations in line.

The entire post is well worth reading.

And on today's numbers, I plotted the New Home Sales for July for the last 30 years (annual rate, seasonally adjusted).


Click on graph for larger image.

The vertical lines indicate the start of a recession.

With the increasing Existing Homes inventory and this very strong New Home Sales report for July, more and more I think this looks like a blow off top for housing. I probably could have written that last year too, but I didn't see the widespread speculation (especially speculation with riskier financing).

I believe there is a relationship between housing, trade and interest rates, and when that starts to unwind, we may see a vicious cycle on the downside.

by Calculated Risk on 8/23/2005 08:10:00 PM

According to a Census Bureau report, New Home Sales in July were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.41 million vs. market expectations of 1.35 million. June sales were revised down to 1.324 million from 1.374 million.


Click on Graph for larger image.

NOTE: The graph starts at 700 thousand units per month to better show monthly variation.

Sales of new one-family houses in July 2005 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,410,000, according to estimates released jointly today by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.



The Not Seasonally Adjusted monthly rate was 120,000 New Homes sold, up from a revised 117,000 in June.

The median sales price of new houses sold in July 2005 was $203,800; the average sales price was $275,000.



The average sales price rebounded slightly and the median price is the lowest since 2003.

The seasonally adjusted estimate of new houses for sale at the end of July was 460,000. This represents a supply of 4.0 months at the current sales rate.



The seasonally adjusted supply of New Homes was 4.0 months, about normal for the last few years.

July was a record for sales, but recently the trend has been for downward revisions and July will probably be revised down. Even though inventories are at a record high, with the strong sales, the months of inventory is normal for the last few years.

Median prices continue to fall and are now at 2003 levels.

by Calculated Risk on 8/23/2005 07:41:00 PM

Here are some excerpts from a FoxNews interview with Yale Economist Robert Shiller said:

Shiller admits he doesn’t have a short, simple definition and then goes on to say that defining a bubble "is similar to the way psychiatrists define a mental illness, that is, it involves a list of symptoms."

Indeed, to hear Shiller describe a financial bubble it sounds like a disease. "It’s a social contagion," he says, "An epidemic whose mode of transmission is word of mouth. It’s emotional. People keep hearing about price increases. There’s a tinge of envy about other people who have done well, which brings more and more people into the market. This, in turn, pushes prices up." In other words, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And Shiller expects the end to be ugly:

... the most important issue is not whether or when the bubble will burst, but what the "end" will it look like. Shiller confesses he has no idea. He says a lot depends on the other factors or "symptoms" in the mix.

In the extreme scenario, buyers start to default on adjustable-rate mortgages and trigger a financial crisis in the banking sector. Real estate prices nosedive as properties are abandoned. If this is compounded by significantly higher oil prices, "it could change the psychology," says Shiller. "Consumer confidence plummets and people pull back on spending." This causes a downward economic spiral and leads to recession.

In the "soft landing" version, real estate prices simply remain flat for years, much as they did after the boom in the 1970s, until they’re back in line with inflation. "This is what people are counting on happening," says Shiller. He considers this outcome unlikely "because the signs of a bubble are stronger."

Though he admits there are so many variables it’s impossible to forecast it precisely, Shiller says he senses that the housing bubble is "more likely to turn out badly."

by Calculated Risk on 8/23/2005 11:13:00 AM

The National Association of Realtors reports that existing home inventories rose to 2.751 in July from 2.653 million in June. Since sales remained strong (7.16 million units vs. 7.33 million annual rate for June), the months of supply only increased to 4.6 months from 4.3 months in June.

Both numbers were better than I expect (sales were higher, inventory lower). They indicate a return to a more "normal" market and not the end of the housing boom - yet.

Year over year (July '04 to July '05) this is a 12.6% inventory increase.

Update: From Bloomberg:

"We are starting to see more houses coming into the market," and that is a sign of a turn, Harris said. "First you see inventories rising, then you see a flattening of prices and then you start to see people have difficulty selling houses because buyers have more options and they get more demanding."

A total of 2.75 million homes were for sale last month, the most since May 1988.

by Calculated Risk on 8/23/2005 01:48:00 AM

Bruce Bartlett, in an article for Townhall.com discusses "Bubble fever". Although Barlett does not take a position, he writes:

Today, many of the same economists who correctly predicted the bursting of the stock market bubble, such as Yale University's Robert Shiller, are saying that the housing market is in a bubble. If it should collapse as the stock market did, the impact could be even more painful. Consider this evidence.

-- Homeowners are much more leveraged than they used to be. According to the Federal Reserve, Americans' home equity has fallen to 56.3 percent of their real estate, from 75 percent a generation ago. Another Federal Reserve study found that 16 percent of the money taken out was simply consumed.

-- According to Freddie Mac, people are taking more and more money out of their homes. Cash-out refinancings have risen to 18.1 percent of all refinancings, from 7.2 percent in 2003. In the last four years, homeowners have taken $559 billion in equity out of their homes.

-- More and more homeowners are buying and refinancing with unconventional loans, such as adjustable-rate and interest-only mortgages, rather than traditional fixed mortgages. Such loans have lower initial payments, but will rise automatically when interest rates rise. The Federal Reserve says that 47 percent of all residential mortgages by dollar volume are now non-traditional.

-- A new study by National City Bank found 53 cities in which home prices were in bubble territory -- defined as 30 percent above where they should be based on local income growth, population density and other factors. Santa Barbara, Calif., ranked as the city with the most overpriced real estate -- 69 percent above fundamental value. Based on the ratio of rent to home prices, prices nationally are now almost 40 percent above where they should be.

-- A new study by the Public Policy Institute of California found growing numbers of homeowners paying as much as 50 percent of their income for housing, including mortgage, taxes, insurance and utilities. In California, 15.4 percent of homeowners fall into this category -- including 20 percent of recent homebuyers -- and 10.6 percent nationally. Almost 40 percent of Californians pay at least 30 percent of their income for housing, with 29 percent doing so nationally. According to Fannie Mae, 28 percent is the most one ought to pay.

According to the National Association of Realtors, 23 percent of homes last year were sold as investments, and another 13 percent were vacation homes. With rapid appreciation being a prime motive for both, any falloff in housing prices could cause many of these properties to be dumped on the market quickly, potentially turning a housing downturn into a crash.

by Calculated Risk on 8/23/2005 12:32:00 AM

The Denver Business Journal reports on a new study by University of Colorado-Denver graduate student Christi Icenogle showing that foreclosed properties are costly to a city. After reviewing the direct costs to the city, the article points out that the combination of "loose" financing and slow appreciation has apparently led to higher foreclosure rates in Denver:

Foreclosure rates have been increasing in Denver, [Zachary Urban, Brothers Redevelopment Inc., a housing counseling nonprofit] said, partly because of adjustable rate mortgages with increasing payments over time, and partly because of job losses. He foresees foreclosures continuing to rise as interest-only loans come home to roost.

Phil Heter, broker/owner of Arvada-based Heter & Co., said he's also been seeing foreclosures increasing, and thinks it's because of loose qualifications on home financing.

"Most of it is 100 percent financing," said Heter, whose Web site is REODenver.com. With no money down and low appreciation, the owners may have little, no, or negative equity in the house and "have a tendency to walk," he said.

In metro Denver, looking at basic homes for first-time homeowners, Heter estimated appreciation was 1 percent last year, and "that's being generous."

Lower appreciation tends to make foreclosure rates higher because the lack of increase in value makes it tougher to sell the home for more than the amount owed.

When housing slows, this could become a widespread problem.

A related problem for local governments, discussed at the The Housing Bubble, is that revenues have been increasing rapidly for cities in boom areas. But the local governments are, in the opinion of Scott Ellis, Brevard County, Florida Clerk of Courts:

"... dangerously sinking much of the newfound windfall into recurring expenses, mainly raises and additional employees. When the real estate bubble pops, the tax rolls will march backwards ... there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth by the time next tax year rolls around."

When housing slows, it appears costs will be rising and revenues falling for cities and local governments.