by Calculated Risk on 6/14/2009 02:17:00 PM

Way back in 2005 I stated the obvious:

"Of all the areas experiencing a housing boom, the areas most at risk have had the greatest increase in real estate related jobs. These jobs include home construction, real estate agents, mortgage brokers, inspectors and more.
...
Not surprisingly, California has become more dependent on construction than the rest of the country, and construction has really boomed in San Diego. But San Diego has nothing on the Inland Empire.

I believe that areas like the Inland Empire will suffer the most when housing activity slows."

To update the graphs:

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph (using Not Seasonally Adjusted data) shows construction as a percent of total employment for the Inland Empire, California and the U.S.

Although there was a surge in construction employment in the U.S., and about a 50% increase in California (as a percent of total employment), construction employment doubled (as a percent of total employment) in the Inland Empire.

Now construction employment in the Inland Empire - as a percent of total employment - is getting close to the lows of the early '90s.

The second graph shows the percent of construction employment and the unemployment rate for the Inland Empire.

With the housing bust, the percent construction employment has declined sharply and the unemployment rate has risen to around 13% (about the same as Detroit).

by Calculated Risk on 6/14/2009 09:37:00 AM

From The Observer: Paul Krugman's fear for lost decade (ht Jonathan)

A few excerpts:

Krugman: The risk of a full, all-out Great Depression - utter collapse of everything - has receded a lot in the past few months. But this first year of crisis has been far worse than anything that happened in Japan during the last decade, so in some sense we already have much worse than anything the Japanese went through. The risk for long stagnation is really high.

And on the stimulus:

Will Hutton: [I]s Obama doing enough on fiscal policy?

PK: Well we have a stimulus which is a little over 5% of one year's GDP but some of it is not real - something that was going to happen anyway and not very stimulative. So it's really about 4% of GDP of genuine stimulus, but spread over two and a half years. So, it's actually quite a lot less than what I was arguing for.

WH: So, will it be sufficient?

PK: Well, sufficient to actually restore full employment would probably have to be 5% or more. More than we have would certainly be a good thing. It actually might happen. You know, the buzz I'm getting is that a second-round stimulus might well come on the agenda.

by Calculated Risk on 6/13/2009 08:31:00 PM

Earlier I posted that Fitch expects "home prices will fall an additional 12.5% nationally and 36% in California" from Q1 2009.

Here is Eric's take ...

From cartoonist Eric G. Lewis. Click on cartoon for larger image in new window.

by Calculated Risk on 6/13/2009 06:03:00 PM

From Reuters: Geithner: It's Too Soon To Withdraw Economic Stimulus

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Saturday it was too early to start withdrawing stimulus for the world's top economies, but governments should pledge a return to more sustainable fiscal policies in the future.

"Growth should remain the principal focus of policy among the G8 and broader G20 economies," Geithner told a news conference ... He said recovery has not yet arrived, and governments need to keep reinforcing recent improvements in global demand.

"It is too early to shift toward policy restraint," Geithner said
...
Geithner said the "force of the economic storm is receding" he told the BBC in Lecce that he wanted recovery firmly in place before withdrawing stimulus.

"We don't have a world economy that's growing anywhere close to potential yet. We want to see recovery firmly established before we start to get on to the next challenge," he said in the interview.

From NY Times: At Talks, Geithner Defends Stimulus

“Where we have seen improvements, they are the result of the unprecedented scope and intensity of policy actions to support demand and financial repair,” Mr. Geithner said in a statement. “These early signs of improvement are encouraging, but the global economy is still operating well below potential, and we still face acute challenges.”
emphasis added

Despite the "unprecedented scope and intensity of policy actions", the global economy (and U.S. economy) are still in recession, and the so-called "improvements" are that the pace of contraction has slowed. We still have a ways to go.

by Calculated Risk on 6/13/2009 01:25:00 PM

From The Telegraph: US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive (ht Chad, Brian)

The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes.

Most are former industrial cities in the "rust belt" of America's Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

In Detroit ... there are already plans to split it into a collection of small urban centres separated from each other by countryside.

"The real question is not whether these cities shrink – we're all shrinking – but whether we let it happen in a destructive or sustainable way," said Mr Kildee. "Decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity."

by Calculated Risk on 6/13/2009 08:44:00 AM

Fitch expects "home prices will fall an additional 12.5% nationally and 36% in California" from Q1 2009.

And, oh, you remember subprime?

From HousingWire: Subprime Bloodletting Continues at Fitch

Fitch Ratings today made massive downgrades on various vintage ‘05 through ‘08 subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), indicating the extent of the fallout related to subprime defaults has yet to subside.

The rating agency slashed hundreds of RMBS ratings further into junk territory.

Here is the Fitch statement: Fitch Takes Various Actions on 543 2005-2008 U.S. Subprime RMBS Deals

On home prices:

The projected losses also reflect an assumption that from the first quarter of 2009, home prices will fall an additional 12.5% nationally and 36% in California, with home prices not exhibiting stability until the second half of 2010. To date, national home prices have declined by 27%. Fitch Rating's revised peak-to-trough expectation is for prices to decline by 36% from the peak price achieved in mid-2006. The additional 9% decline represents a 12.5% decline from today's levels.

In explaining the downgrades, Fitch said the actions reflect updated loss expectations and further economic deterioration:

“The home price declines to date have resulted in negative equity for approximately 50% of the remaining performing borrowers in the 2005-2007 vintages. In addition to continued home price deterioration, unemployment has risen significantly since the third quarter of last year, particularly in California where the unemployment rate has jumped from 7.8% to 11%.”

by Calculated Risk on 6/12/2009 10:54:00 PM

"The conventional view is that housing appreciation is good because it reduces (default) risk. Not according to my theory, which is housing appreciation is bad. It encourages junior-lien borrowing. When appreciation stops, somebody is going to be left in a bad position."
Michael LaCour-Little, finance professor at Cal State Fullerton (emphasis added)

From Matt Padilla at the O.C. Register: Second mortgages: Lines of danger?

Record foreclosures hitting Orange County involve more than just newbie buyers who got in over their heads.

Some housing watchers say evidence is mounting that even veteran homeowners got caught up in housing euphoria and now are paying for it.

The latest argument comes from Michael LaCour-Little, a finance professor at Cal State Fullerton. He is lead author of a new study, which found that during the housing boom some long-time owners borrowed against all their property's equity gain, or paper profits. They treated their houses like cash machines.
...
It's long been assumed that homebuyers who purchased at housing's peak with little money down are among the most likely to face foreclosure. They owed more than their property was worth once prices tanked.

But the study concludes 'cashing-out' is about as predictive of foreclosure for the same reason: negative equity.

And look at these numbers:

Professor LaCour-Little tracked all houses and condos set for foreclosure auctions, known as trustee's sales, in the first two weeks of November 2006, 2007 and 2008 in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. ...

For the early November 2008 data sample, he tracked 2,358 properties and found 79 percent of borrowers had at least a second mortgage. Some also had third and fourth liens. ...

The 2008 foreclosures were purchased in "median" year 2004, meaning half the purchases were before and half after. That suggests more than half the purchases were before housing's peak in 2005 and 2006.

There will be many foreclosures of homes bought before the bubble (or in the early stages of the bubble), because the homeowners extracted too much equity from the home. This is not surprising, but probably means more foreclosures than policymakers expect.

by Calculated Risk on 6/12/2009 09:36:00 PM

Since the FDIC cancelled Friday ... here is Senator Voinovich showing us his charting skills.

by Calculated Risk on 6/12/2009 06:27:00 PM

From Forbes: Bair Cautions Banking Crisis Is Not Over (ht jb)

Sheila Bair ... said Friday that while the crisis that swept through the financial world last year has subsided somewhat, it was far from over and there would be "many more bank failures" ahead.

"I think there's still some challenges, I think we need to be realistic. There are still some troubled assets on the books and we still have an economy that's under significant stress," said Bair in a 90-minute interview with Forbes reporters and editors on Friday.

We still don't know how deep the recession is going to be," she said, adding, "we'll still be well below what we were in the S&L days."
...
"Hopefully there are no more events that create liquidity stresses on the banks," Bair said, knocking on a wooden conference room table, "and now we're having more good old-fashioned capital insolvencies."

... she worried aloud about the current trend toward making the Federal Reserve banking's regulator-in-chief. ... "No other developed country gives their central bank the kind of power we give our central bank," Bair said.

"[The Fed] had authority to prescribe across-the-board lending standards for mortgages, and a lot of people said they should do that and they just didn't," Bair says as an example of where too many roles led to lapses. "Where does the consumer role go on your priority list? At some point it just doesn't get done. It just doesn't get the focus it should."

by Calculated Risk on 6/12/2009 04:00:00 PM

Some stats: There have been 37 FDIC bank failures in 2009 (about 1.6 per week).

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the bank failures per week through the first 23 weeks of 2009.

There have been six weeks with no failures, and two weeks with four failures.

Note: Corus Bankshares Inc. faces a June 18th deadline imposed by bank regulators to raise capital or find a buyer. I wouldn't be surprised if Corus is seized next week.

The second graph is from Doug Short of dshort.com (financial planner): "Four Bad Bears".

Note that the Great Depression crash is based on the DOW; the three others are for the S&P 500.