by Calculated Risk on 3/28/2009 03:30:00 PM

The following is a section on housing from John Mauldin's newsletter: Why Bother With Bonds?. I'd like to correct a few mistakes, not to embarrass Mr. Mauldin - we all make mistakes - but hopefully to illustrate a few points about the housing data.

From Mauldin:

Housing Sales Improve? Not Hardly

I opened the Wall Street Journal and read that new home sales were up in February. Bloomberg reported that sales were "unexpectedly" up by 4.7%. I was intrigued, so I went to the data. As it turns out, sales were down 41% year over year, but up slightly from January.

But if you look at the data series, there was nothing unexpected about it. For years on end, February sales are up over January. It seems we like to buy homes in the spring and summer and then sales fall off in the fall and winter. It is a very seasonal thing.

Uh, the numbers from the Census Bureau are seasonally adjusted. From the Census Bureau report:

Sales of new one-family houses in February 2009 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 337,000, according to estimates released jointly today by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This is 4.7 percent (±18.3%)* above the revised January rate of 322,000, but is 41.1 percent (±7.9%) below the February 2008 estimate of 572,000.
emphasis added

Mauldin continues with the error:

If you use the seasonally adjusted numbers, you find sales were down 2.9% instead of up 4.7%. But the media reports the positive number. Interestingly, they report the seasonally adjusted numbers for initial claims, which have been a lot better than the actual numbers. Not that they are looking to just report positive news, you understand.

As best I can tell, Mauldin is using the decline in inventory (from 340 thousand to 330 thousand) as the Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate (SAAR) sales numbers. That shows a decline of 2.9%, but that is inventory - not sales.

The Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA) monthly sales number are 27 thousand in February, compared to 23 thousand in January. An increase of 17.4%! If Mauldin is looking for an example of the media cherry picking SA vs. NSA, this isn't it.

Back to Mauldin:

Plus, as my friend Barry Ritholtz points out, the 4.7% rise was "plus or minus 18.3%". That means sales could have risen as much as 23% or dropped 13%. We won't know for awhile until we get real numbers and not estimates. Hanging your outlook for the economy or the housing market on one-month estimates is an exercise in futility, and could come back to embarrass you.

Barry is correct - this is the 90% confidence interval from the Census Bureau. And I agree we should always be cautious with just one month of data.

More Mauldin:

But that brings up my final point tonight, and that is how data gets revised by the various government agencies. Typically with these government statistics, you get a preliminary number, which is a guess based on past trends, and then as time goes along that data is revised. In recessions like we are in now the revisions are almost always negative.

There is no conspiracy here. The people who work in the government offices have to create a model to make estimates. Each data series, whether new home sales, employment, or durable goods sales, etc., has its own unique sets of characteristics. The estimates are based on past historical performance. There is really no other way to do it.

So, past performance in a recession suggests higher estimates than what really happens. Then, the numbers in the following months are revised downward as actual numbers are obtained. But the estimates in the current months are still too high. That makes the comparisons generally favorable, at least for one month. And the media and the bulls leap all over the "data," and some silly economist goes on TV or in the press and says something like, "This is a sign that things are stabilizing." It drives me nuts.

First, the preliminary estimate is not a "guess"; the esimate is based on a sample. As more data is received, the estimate is refined, and the confidence interval narrows - but it is always an estimate (it is never "real numbers" or a "guess").

Mauldin is correct about new home sales revisions being negative during the housing bust (something I've written about many times).

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the change from the preliminary release to the most recent release. Usually the revisions can be either positive or negative, but during the housing bust almost all the revisions were negative. For the two most recent months, the revisions have been positive, but there are more revisions to come.

Mauldin's conclusion is:

Ignore month-to-month estimated data. The key thing to look for is the direction of the revisions. If they are down, as they have been for over a year, then that is a bad sign. Further, one month's estimates are just noise. Look at the year-over-year numbers. When the direction of the revisions is positive and the year-over-year numbers are starting to stabilize, then we will know things are starting to turn around.

I agree with his comment on revisions, although it takes several months to know if the data is being revised up or down.

Looking at year-over-year numbers is useful, but I think we can also look cautiously at the monthly numbers too. We needn't do this in a vacuum. Here is what I wrote early this year: Looking for the Sun

New home sales is a little more difficult because of the huge overhang of excess inventory that needs to be worked off. But some people will always buy new homes, and we can be pretty sure that sales won't fall another 270 thousand in 2009 (like in 2008), because that would put sales at 60 thousand SAAR in December 2009. That is not going to happen.

So, at the least, the pace of decline in new home sales will slow in 2009. More likely sales will find a bottom - to the surprise of many.

And here was my take on the recent report: New Home Sales: Is this the bottom?. An excerpt:

This graph shows the February "rebound".

You have to look closely - this is an eyesight test - and you will see the increase in sales (if you expand the graph).

Not only was this the worst February in the Census Bureau records, but this was the 2nd worst month ever on a seasonally adjusted annual rate basis (only January was worse).

Note: Once again, I'm not trying to embarrass Mr. Mauldin, but hopefully this helps in looking at the housing data.

by Calculated Risk on 3/28/2009 11:44:00 AM

By popular request, here is a graph comparing four significant bear markets: the Dow during the Great Depression, the NASDAQ, the Nikkei, and the current S&P 500.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph is from Doug Short of dshort.com (financial planner):

"The Mega-Bear Quartet and L-Shaped Recoveries".

Note: updated today.

by Calculated Risk on 3/28/2009 09:54:00 AM

From the LA Times: FDIC orders changes at six California banks

[T]he Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. disclosed Friday that it had ordered six more California banks to clean up their acts in February after the agency examined their books and operations.
...
The number of such regulatory actions has been increasing rapidly.
...
By the end of 2009, two-thirds of the state's banks will be operating under cease-and-desist orders or other regulatory actions, Anaheim-based banking consultant Gary S. Findley predicts.
...
Most banks targeted in such actions eventually tighten up operations and continue in business or merge with stronger institutions, but regulators are preparing for a major wave of failures.
...
In addition to public cease-and-desist orders, banks are subject to a variety of regulatory sanctions, including so-called memorandums of understanding, which are informal directives to correct problems. Regulators don't release those memos, but banks sometimes disclose them to shareholders.

So far 21 FDIC insured banks have failed this year, and 3 in California. There will probably be many more ...

by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2009 10:18:00 PM

From the NY Times: U.S. Expected to Give More Financing to Automakers

The Obama administration will probably extend more short-term aid to General Motors and Chrysler on Monday ...

The administration is expected to set a short deadline — weeks rather than months — to compel the automakers, their lenders and the U.A.W. to reach agreement.

Both G.M. and Chrysler are close to exhausting the loans they received since December. ...

G.M.’s request for up to $16.6 billion more in federal loans will be treated separately from Chrysler’s request for an additional $5 billion ...

The announcement on Monday will usher in a more intensive period of oversight by the government of G.M. and Chrysler ...

Another week, another bailout.

by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2009 07:20:00 PM

Just some quick words of advice from Jon Stewart (Dec 13, 2000): (ht Martin)

by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2009 05:17:00 PM

Update: from Soylent Green Is People

Bright, warm Spring Friday...
Bank failures blight like crab grass...
Spray Round-Up on all....
From the FDIC: SunTrust Bank, Atlanta, Georgia, Receives the Insured Deposits of Omni National Bank, Atlanta, Georgia

Omni National Bank, Atlanta, Georgia, was closed today by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which then appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver.
...
As of March 9, 2009, Omni National Bank had total assets of $956.0 million and total deposits of $796.8 million. At the time of closing, there were approximately $2.0 million in uninsured deposits that potentially exceeded the insurance limits. ...
...
The cost to the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund is estimated to be $290 million. Omni National Bank is the twenty-first bank to fail this year. The last bank failure in Georgia was FirstCity Bank, Stockbridge, on March 20, 2009.

This is the follow-up to the earlier post.

by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2009 04:43:00 PM

First, a quick market update ...

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This 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.

On Q1 GDP:

Earlier today the BEA released the February Personal Income and Outlays report. This report suggests Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) will probably be slightly positive in Q1 (caveat: this is before the March releases and revisions).

Since PCE is almost 70% of GDP, does this mean GDP will be OK in Q1?

Nope.

I expect Q1 2009 GDP to be very negative, and possibly worse than in Q4 2008. Right now I'm looking at something like a 6% to 8% decline (annualized) in real GDP (there is significant uncertainty, especially with inventory and trade).

The problem is the 30% of non-PCE GDP, especially private fixed investment. There will probably be a significant inventory correction too, and some decline in local and state government spending. But it is private fixed investment that will cliff dive. This includes residential investment, non-residential investment in structures, and investment in equipment and software.

A little story ...

Imagine ACME widget company with a steadily growing sales volume (say 5% per year). In the first half of 2008 their sales were running at 100 widgets per year, but in the 2nd half sales fell to a 95 widget per year rate. Not too bad.

ACME's customers are telling the company that they expect to only buy 95 widgets this year, and 95 in 2010. Not good news, but still not too bad for ACME.

But this is a disaster for companies that manufacturer widget making equipment. ACME was steadily buying new widget making equipment over the years, but now they have all the equipment they need for the next two years or longer.

ACME sales fell 5%. But the widget equipment manufacturer's sales could fall to zero, except for replacements and repairs.

And this is what we will see in Q1 2009. Real investment in equipment and software has declined for four straight quarters, including a 28.1% decline (annualized) in Q4. And I expect another huge decline in Q1.

For non-residential investment in structures, the long awaited slump is here. I expect declining investment over a number of quarters (many of these projects are large and take a number of quarters to complete, so the decline in investment could be spread out over a couple of years). And once again, residential investment has declined sharply in Q1 too.

When you add it up, this looks like a significant investment slump in Q1.

by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2009 04:09:00 PM

Form Bloomberg: Omni National Bank in Georgia Shut, 21st U.S. Failure (ht Brad)

Omni National Bank of Atlanta was seized by federal regulators, the 21st U.S. bank to fail this year ...

Omni National, with $980 million in assets, was shut by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was named receiver, the OCC said today in a statement. ...

The failed bank had six branches in Georgia, Illinois, Florida and Texas, and two loan offices in Alabama and Pennsylvania, the OCC said. The lender opened in 2000. The FDIC, which arranges to sell the deposits and assets of failed banks, didn’t immediately identify a buyer for Omni National.

No word from the FDIC yet. Did Bloomberg jump the gun?

by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2009 02:39:00 PM

From Bloomberg: Default Rate Rises for Student Loans, U.S. Government Reports (ht Anthony)

Student-loan default rates for people who recently left school rose to 6.9 percent from 5.2 percent a year earlier as a deteriorating economy weighed on borrowers, the U.S. government said.

... The rate is based on borrowers who were to begin making repayments between October 2006 and October 2007, and who fell at least nine months behind by late September 2008.

Almost 232,000 of those borrowers entered default, a 13 percent increase from the previous year and a jump of 43 percent from two years earlier, the department said.

by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2009 11:34:00 AM

The BEA released vehicle sales for February this morning. Total auto and truck sales in the U.S. were 9.29 million (SAAR).

The automakers will release March sales numbers next Wednesday.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

The first graph shows monthly vehicle sales (autos and trucks) as reported by the BEA at a Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate (SAAR).

This shows that sales have plunged to a 9.29 million annual rate in February; the lowest since Dec 1981.

March 2009 sales will be down sharply from March 2008 too, but analysts will be looking for some stabilization on a seasonally adjusted basis.

This graph shows the total number of registered vehicles in the U.S. divided by the sales rate - and gives a turnover ratio for the U.S. fleet (this doesn't tell you the age of the fleet).

Currently this ratio is at 26.8 years, the highest ever. This is an unsustainable level (I doubt most vehicles will last 27 years!), and the ratio will probably decline over the next few years. This could happen with vehicles being removed from the fleet, but more likely because of a sales increase.

This suggests vehicle sales are much nearer the bottom than the top, and there will probably be some sort of modest rebound later this year.

by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2009 11:04:00 AM

In addition to the Personal Income report this morning, the BEA released the final Q4 private fixed investment supplemental tables.

One of the key areas for downward revisions in the final Q4 GDP report was non-residential investment. These revisions were significant.

I'll use lodging as an example ... this first graph was based on the advanced GDP report:

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows investment in lodging as a percent of GDP.

In the advance report, lodging investment was reported at 0.34% of GDP - an all time high.

Note: prior to 1997, the BEA included Lodging in a category with a few other buildings. This earlier data was normalized using 1997 data, and is an approximation.

The second graph is based on the final Q4 GDP report.

Instead of increasing slightly in Q4 - as suggested by the advance report - lodging investment declined at a 15.7% annual rate in Q4.

Office investment declined at a 10.1% annual rate in Q4, and mall investment declined at a 11.3% annual rate.

The turning point for non-residential investment was in Q4. Let the cliff diving begin!

by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2009 08:26:00 AM

The BEA released the Personal Income and Outlays report for February this morning. The report shows that PCE will probably make a positive contribution to GDP in Q1 2009.

Each quarter I've been estimating PCE growth based on the Two Month method. This method is based on the first two months of each quarter and has provided a very close estimate for the actual quarterly PCE growth.

Some background: The BEA releases Personal Consumption Expenditures monthly and quarterly, as part of the GDP report (also released separately quarterly).

You can use the monthly series to exactly calculate the quarterly change in real PCE. The quarterly change is not calculated as the change from the last month of one quarter to the last month of the next. Instead, you have to average all three months of a quarter, and then take the change from the average of the three months of the preceding quarter.

So, for Q1 2009, you would average real PCE for January, February, and March, then divide by the average for October, November and December. Of course you need to take this to the fourth power (for the annual rate) and subtract one.

The March data isn't released until after the advance Q1 GDP report. But we can use the change from October to January, and the change from November to February (the Two Month Estimate) to approximate PCE growth for Q1.

The two month method suggests real PCE growth in Q1 of 0.8% (annualized). Not much, but a significant improvement from the previous two quarters (declines of -3.8% and -4.3% in PCE).

The following graph shows this calculation:

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows real PCE for the last 12 months. The Y-axis doesn't start at zero to better show the change.

The dashed red line shows the comparison between January and October. The dashed green line shows the comparison between February and November.

Since PCE was weak in December, the March to December comparison will probably be positive too.

This graph also show the declines in PCE in Q3 and Q4.

For Q3, compare July through September with April through June. Notice the sharp decline in PCE. The same was true in Q4.

This suggests that PCE will make a positive contribution to GDP in Q1.

Also interesting:

Personal saving -- DPI less personal outlays -- was $450.7 billion in February, compared with $478.1 billion in January. Personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income was 4.2 percent in February, compared with 4.4 percent in January.

This is substantially above the near zero percent saved of recent years.

This graph shows the saving rate starting in 1959 (using a three month centered average for smoothing).

Although this data may be revised significantly, this does suggest households are saving substantially more than during the last few years (when they saving rate was close to zero). This is a necessary but painful step ... and a rising saving rate will repair balance sheets, but also keep downward pressure on personal consumption.

It is not much, but this is definitely a positive report.

by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2009 12:19:00 AM

Another open thread.

The U.S. futures are off a little right now ahead of the Personal Income and Outlays report Friday AM. This report should give us a strong clue on PCE for Q1.

Bloomberg Futures.

CBOT mini-sized Dow

CME Globex Flash Quotes

Futures from barchart.com

And the Asian markets. The Asian markets are up a little tonight (in general).

And a graph of the Asian markets.

Best to all.

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2009 08:25:00 PM

ht Nemo. Caution: Cartoon violence.

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2009 06:24:00 PM

We do requests (sometimes). This is an update to a graph I posted last November.

This is a look at the real year-over-year (YoY) change in house prices vs. personal consumption expenditures (PCE) through Q4 2008:

Click on image for larger graph in new window.

This graph shows real Case-Shiller quarterly national prices adjusted using CPI less Shelter vs. real PCE. Note that YoY real Case-Shiller prices fell at a slightly slower pace in Q4 - only 17% - compared to 21% YoY in Q3, mostly because CPI less shelter declined in Q4.

For this limited data set (house price data is only available since 1987) the YoY changes move somewhat together, although house prices started declining before PCE during the current economic downturn. This difference in timing could be because of homeowners withdrawing equity from their homes (the Home ATM) even after prices first started falling. However the recent MEW data shows that the Home ATM is closed and consumption has declined sharply.

This doesn't tell us how much further real PCE will decline on a YoY basis - my initial guess was 4%, but it might be less.

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2009 04:26:00 PM

The Federal Reserve released the Factors Affecting Reserve Balances today. Total assets increased to $2.1 trillion.

[This] include information related to the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF). Credit was extended under the TALF for the first time on March 25, 2009.

The TALF is just getting started with $4.7 billion yesterday.


Click on graph for larger image in new window.

After spiking last year to $2.31 trillion the week of Dec 18th, the Federal Reserve assets have declined somewhat.

Now the Federal Reserve is starting to expand their balance sheet again.

Note: the graph shows Total Factors Supplying Federal Reserve Funds and is an available series that is close to assets.

Three trillion here we come! Or maybe four?

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2009 04:14:00 PM

Rex Nutting writes at MarketWatch: Unemployment still rising

The raw numbers, not seasonally adjusted, [show] 6.4 million collecting state unemployment benefits, and an additional 1.4 million who were collecting the federal benefits that go to people who've been fruitlessly looking for a job for more than six months.

The claims numbers don't show the whole story.

About 4 million more people are officially unemployed but not eligible for jobless benefits. In addition, 8.6 million can find only part-time work and another 2 million have given up looking for work. Nearly 15% of the workforce is unemployed, underemployed, or just plain discouraged.

The employment situation is grim, and even if GDP turns slightly positive later this year, the unemployment rate will probably rise all this year and into 2010.

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2009 02:51:00 PM

From Kris Hudson at the WSJ: Developers Scale Back Luxury Projects as Economy Shifts

Amid the worst retail climate in decades, a number of shopping developments are slated to open this year ...

Real-estate developers are expected this year to complete more than 78 million square feet of new retail space in the top 54 U.S. markets, according to real-estate-research company Property & Portfolio Research Inc. While that is down from the 144 million square feet completed last year -- the peak number this decade -- the amount expected this year probably is more than the market can absorb in its second year of a recession.
...
The situation is a reminder of the vulnerabilities of commercial real-estate development to changes in the economy. Because it can take years to get a project from conception to completion, projects that sounded like a great idea a few years ago are fast becoming problematic for developers.

For certain retail space, the absorption rate is negative because of all the store closings and retailer bankruptcies. Vacancy rates are already climbing sharply, and this additional 78 million square feet of retail space will push up the vacancy rate even more.

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2009 12:13:00 PM

From HotelNewsNow.com: STR reports U.S. performance for week ending 21 March 2009

In year-over-year measurements, the industry’s occupancy fell 4.7 percent to end the week at 58.5 percent. Average daily rate dropped 8.0 percent to finish the week at US$99.92. Revenue per available room for the week decreased 12.3 percent to finish at US$58.45.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the YoY change in the occupancy rate (3 week trailing average).

The three week average is off 12.0% from the same period in 2008.

The average daily rate is down 8.0%, so RevPAR (Revenue per available room) is off 12.3% from the same week last year.

Data Source: Smith Travel Research, Courtesy of HotelNewsNow.com

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2009 10:57:00 AM

From Bloomberg: Geithner Calls for ‘New Rules of the Game’ in Finance

... Geithner’s proposals would bring large hedge funds, private-equity firms and derivatives markets under federal supervision for the first time. A new systemic risk regulator would have powers to force companies to boost their capital or curtail borrowing, and officials would get the authority to seize them if they run into trouble.
...
The administration’s regulatory framework would make it mandatory for large hedge funds, private-equity firms and venture-capital funds to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC would be able to refer those firms to the systemic regulator, which could order them to raise capital or curtail borrowing.

The strategy also would require derivatives to be traded through central clearinghouses. And it would add new oversight for money-market mutual funds ....

While the Bush administration had proposed that the Federal Reserve take on the authority of a systemic-risk regulator, Geithner didn’t specify which agency should have the job. Bernanke has also called for such a regulator, and said the central bank should have some role.

Imagine if the Federal Reserve had been the "systemic-risk regulator" during the bubble.

According to Greenspan in 2005 "we don't perceive that there is a national bubble", just "a little froth", and even in March 2007 Bernanke said "the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained".

How would a systemic-risk regulator help if they miss the problem?

I'm not opposing this idea - I don't see how it could hurt - and I think having the FDIC, OTS, Fed, state agencies, and others all providing risk oversight is unworkable.