by Calculated Risk on 8/28/2009 10:23:00 AM

Next Friday the BLS employment report for August will be released.

Last month, when the unemployment rate dipped slightly to 9.4% from 9.5% in June, there were several articles like this one from the LA Times: Unemployment rate decline may indicate the recession has hit bottom.

Earlier I pointed out that the dip in unemployment was just monthly noise: Jobs and the Unemployment Rate

FAQ: How can the unemployment rate fall if the economy is losing net jobs, especially since the population is growing?

This data comes from two separate surveys. The unemployment Rate comes from the Current Population Survey (CPS: commonly called the household survey), a monthly survey of about 60,000 households.

The jobs number comes from Current Employment Statistics (CES: payroll survey), a sample of approximately 400,000 business establishments nationwide.

These are very different surveys: the CPS gives the total number of employed (and unemployed including the alternative measures), and the CES gives the total number of positions (excluding some categories like the self-employed, and a person working two jobs counts as two positions).
...
[T]he jobs and unemployment rate come from two different surveys and are different measurements (one for positions, the other for people). Some months the numbers may not seem to make sense (lost jobs and falling unemployment rate), but over time the numbers will work out.

Here are a couple of scatter graphs to illustrate this point ...

The first graph shows the monthly change in net jobs (on the x-axis) as a percentage of the civilian workforce, and the change in the unemployment rate on the y-axis.

The data is for the last 40 years: 1969 through July 2009.

Click on graph for large image.

Obviously there is a correlation - the more jobs added (further right on the x-axis), the more the unemployment rate declines (y-axis). And generally the more jobs lost, the more the unemployment rate increases.

But the graph sure is noisy on a monthly basis.

If the economy added 0.2% net jobs in one month (as a percent of the civilian workforce, or about 300 thousand net jobs currently), the unemployment rate could increase 0.2% or decrease 0.4% - and still be within the normal scatter.

The second graph covers the same period but on a quarterly basis:

Now we see a much sharper correlation.

The Red squares are the for 2008, and the first two quarters of 2009. This recession fits the normal pattern.

If the economy loses about 200 thousand jobs per month in August and September, this relationship suggests the unemployment rate will probably be close to 10% by the end of September.

This also suggests the economy needs to be adding about 0.33 percent of the civilian workforce per quarter to keep the unemployment rate from rising. That is about 170 thousand net jobs per month.

Note that the trend line is a 2nd order polynomial (equation on graph). When the economy starts to add jobs, more people start looking for work - and the relationship between net jobs and unemployment rate is not linear.

This graph show the employment-population ratio; this is the ratio of employed Americans to the adult population.

Note: the graph doesn't start at zero to better show the change.

The general upward trend from the early '60s was mostly due to women entering the workforce.

This measure fell slightly in July to 59.4%, the lowest level since the early '80s. However once the economy starts adding jobs, more people will be looking for work, and the employment-population ratio will start to increase. This means the stronger the economy, the more net jobs required each quarter to lower the unemployment rate by the same amount (as shown on the 2nd graph above).

The bottom line is the unemployment rate will still increase, and we will probably see 10% later this year.

by Calculated Risk on 8/28/2009 08:30:00 AM

From the BEA: Personal Income and Outlays, July 2009

Personal income increased $3.8 billion, or less than 0.1 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI) decreased $4.6 billion, or less than 0.1 percent, in July, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $25.0 billion, or 0.2 percent.
...
Real PCE -- PCE adjusted to remove price changes -- increased 0.2 percent in July, compared with an increase of 0.1 percent in June.
...
Personal saving -- DPI less personal outlays – was $458.5 billion in July, compared with $486.8 billion in June. Personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income was 4.2 percent in July, compared with 4.5 percent in June.

Click on graph for large image.

This graph shows the saving rate starting in 1959 (using a three month centered average for smoothing) through the July Personal Income report. The saving rate was 4.2% in July.

Households are saving substantially more than during the last few years (when the saving rate was around 1.0%). The saving rate will probably continue to rise.

The following graph shows real Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) through July (2005 dollars). Note that the y-axis doesn't start at zero to better show the change.

The quarterly change in PCE is based on the change from the average in one quarter, compared to the average of the preceding quarter.

The colored rectangles show the quarters, and the blue bars are the real monthly PCE.

The July numbers suggest PCE will grow at a 1.3% (annualized rate) in Q3.

Note that PCE declined sharply in Q3 and Q4 2008 - the cliff diving - and was been relatively flat in Q1 and Q2 2009. Auto sales should gave a boost to PCE in Q3, but in general PCE will probably remain weak over the 2nd half of 2009 and into 2010 as households continue to repair their balance sheets.

by Calculated Risk on 8/28/2009 12:16:00 AM

From MarketWatch: Japan reports record unemployment rate for July

Japan [reported] a record unemployment rate and the biggest decline in consumer prices in roughly 38 years.

Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications said the country's unemployment rate rose to 5.7% in July from 5.4% in the previous month.

The unemployment rate was higher than the 5.5% expected by economists, according to Dow Jones Newswires, and is the highest on record since World War II.
...
Meanwhile Japan's average monthly income per household fell 2.4% in nominal terms in July, while consumption expenditures fell 4.5% nominally ...

Japan's recession may be over, but I bet it doesn't feel like it to many workers.

by Calculated Risk on 8/27/2009 10:26:00 PM

From the WSJ: Recession Finally Hits Down on the Farm (ht Bob_in_MA)

The Agriculture Department forecast Thursday that U.S. farm profits will fall 38% this year, indicating that the slump is taking hold in rural America. ... The Agriculture Department said it expects net farm income -- a widely followed measure of profitability -- to drop to $54 billion in 2009, down $33.2 billion from last year's estimated net farm income of $87.2 billion, which was nearly a record high.

And from the Chicago Fed August AgLetter:

Farmland values for the second quarter of 2009 were 3 percent lower than a year ago in the Seventh Federal Reserve District. ... Almost 30 percent of the responding bankers expected farmland values to fall in the third quarter of 2009, whereas 71 percent expected stable farmland values.

This will probably mean lower food prices, from the WSJ:

For most Americans, the chill in the farm belt is related to one of the few positives they see in this economy: slowing inflation. Prices farmers are receiving for everything from corn and wheat to hogs are down sharply from last year.

by Calculated Risk on 8/27/2009 06:01:00 PM

A little history from Paul Kasriel, Chief Economist at Northern Trust: The Rhyming of History – Bloomberg and the RFC?

On November 7, 2008, Bloomberg LP sued the Federal Reserve Board under terms of the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the names of borrowers of funds from the Federal Reserve as well as lists of the collateral posted by the borrowers. On August 25, 2009, a U.S. District judge ruled in favor of Bloomberg, ordering the Federal Reserve Board to turn over to Bloomberg the requested information within five days. At this writing, the Fed has yet to comply and has yet made a decision to appeal the ruling.

CR Notes, from Bloomberg: The Fed has asked the Judge to stay the order until the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York can hear the case.

The Fed has been reluctant to reveal the names of its borrowers allegedly out of a concern that such a revelation could have an adverse competitive impact on the borrowers.

The reason I bring this up is that it is similar to a situation that arose in 1932 with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). The RFC was established by an act of Congress on January 22, 1932, for the purpose of making loans to financial institutions, railroads and to extend credit for crop loans. The Treasury provided some capital to the RFC and the RFC was permitted to borrow from the Treasury. Initially, the RFC granted credit primarily to banks. These loans coincided with a reduction in bank failures and currency held outside the banks declined.

On July 21, 1932, the RFC was authorized to make loans for self-liquidating public works projects, and to states to provide relief and work relief to needy and unemployed people. This legislation also required that the RFC report to Congress, on a monthly basis, the identity of all new borrowers of RFC funds. On orders from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, commencing in August 1932, the names of banks borrowing from the RFC became public information. This publication of the names of banks borrowing from the RFC discouraged current borrowers from continuing their borrowing and prospective borrowers from commencing borrowings out of a fear that depositors would judge this borrowing as a sign of financial weakness. By November 1932, the outstanding amount of RFC loans to banks had decreased.

In mid February of 1933, a Detroit bank began having difficulties. The RFC was willing to lend to this bank, but because of a dispute between one of the Michigan senators and Henry Ford, a large depositor in the bank, the RFC loan was not allowed to be made. A bank panic started in Michigan as a result. This Michigan bank panic served as a catalyst for a nationwide bank panic.

The failure of the Detroit bank was not because the bank was reluctant to borrow from the RFC. But one can only speculate as to whether other banks in Michigan and nationwide were reluctant to borrow from the RFC because their names would have been published. And one can only speculate that if these other banks had willing to borrow from the RFC if a nationwide bank could have been averted.

Today, we have federal deposit insurance. Therefore, the probabilities and magnitude of depositor runs on banks are much reduced compared with 1933. Yet, we can see “runs” by stockholders and other creditors of banks if there is a suspicion of financial problems. If the Fed is required to publish the names of financial institutions to which it has extended credit and this publication induces financial institutions to refrain from borrowing from the Fed, one can only speculate if this would be the tinder for another liquidity conflagration in the coming months.

Would we see another liquidity crisis because of concerns about the level of borrowing by certain banks from the Fed? I don't think so - but this is the concern. Doesn't everyone already suspect that Citi and BofA will be near the top of the list?

I suppose some second tier bank might have a problem if the data is disclosed.

by Calculated Risk on 8/27/2009 02:13:00 PM

From HotelNewsNow.com: STR reports US performance for week ending 22 August 2009

In year-over-year measurements, the industry’s occupancy fell 7.2 percent to end the week at 60.4 percent. Average daily rate dropped 10.2 percent to finish the week at US$95.70. Revenue per available room for the week decreased 16.7 percent to finish at US$57.84.

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 7.3% from the same period in 2008.

The average daily rate is down 10.2%, and RevPAR is off 16.7% from the same week last year.

Comments: This is a multi-year slump. Although the occupancy rate was off 7.3 percent compared to last year, the occupancy rate is off over 11 percent compared to the same week in 2007.

The end of July through the beginning of August is usually the peak leisure travel period. So the peak occupancy rate for 2009 was probably a month ago at 67%. And that is far below normal.

Earlier this year business travel was off much more than leisure travel. So it was expected that the summer months would not be as weak as earlier in the year. September - after Labor Day (Sept 7th) - will be the real test for business travel, and for the hotel industry.

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

by Calculated Risk on 8/27/2009 11:57:00 AM

From the Financial Times: ‘Cash-for-clunkers’ sales disappoint Detroit (ht James)

[S]igns are already emerging that overall sales will fall back sharply now that the incentives have expired.
...
[Edmunds.com] estimates that, based on visits to its websites, “purchase intent” is down 11 per cent from the average in June ...
excerpted with permission

It now appears that sales in August were at about a 16 million SAAR (auto sales for August will be released next week).

This follows an 11.22 million SAAR in July. The Cash-for-clunkers program started on July 24th.

If sales in September are 11% below June - that would put sales at under 9 million SAAR - the lowest sales for this cycle, and perhaps at the lowest rate since the early '70s. Of course the program just ended, but it will be interesting to see how much Cash-for-Clunkers cannibalized future sales.

by Calculated Risk on 8/27/2009 10:00:00 AM

The FDIC released the Q2 Quarterly Banking Profile today. The FDIC listed 416 banks with $299.8 billion in assets as “problem” banks in Q2, up from 305 banks with $220.0 billion in assets in Q1, and 252 and $159.4 billion in assets in Q4 2008.

Note: Not all problem banks will fail - and not all failures will be from the problem bank list - but this shows the problem is significant and still growing.

The Unofficial Problem Bank List shows 391 problem banks - and will probably increase this week.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the number of FDIC insured "problem" banks since 1990.

The 416 problem banks reported at the end of Q2 is the highest since 1993.

There has been some concern that the FDIC has been slow to add banks to the problem list - and a number of failed banks were apparently never on the official list.

The second graph shows the assets of "problem" banks since 1990.

The assets of problem banks are the highest since 1993.

And the banking industry posted a net loss for the quarter:

Burdened by costs associated with rising levels of troubled loans and falling asset values, FDIC-insured commercial banks and savings institutions reported an aggregate net loss of $3.7 billion in the second quarter of 2009. Increased expenses for bad loans were chiefly responsible for the industry’s loss. Insured institutions added $66.9 billion in loan-loss provisions to their reserves during the quarter, an increase of $16.5 billion (32.8 percent) compared to the second quarter of 2008. Quarterly earnings were also adversely affected by writedowns of asset-backed commercial paper, and by higher assessments for deposit insurance.

On the Deposit Insurance Fund:

On June 30, 2009, a special assessment was imposed on all insured banks and thrifts. For 8,106 institutions, with assets of $9.3 trillion, the special assessment was 5 basis points of each institution’s assets minus Tier 1 capital; 89 other institutions, with assets of $4.0 trillion, had their special assessment capped at 10 basis points of their second quarter assessment base.

The Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) decreased by $2.6 billion (20.3 percent) during the second quarter to $10.4 billion (unaudited). Accrued assessment income from the regular and the special assessment increased the fund by $9.1 billion. Interest earned, combined with realized gains on securities and debt guarantee surcharges from the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program added $1.1 billion to the fund. Unrealized losses on available-for-sale securities combined with operating expenses reduced the fund by $1.3 billion.

The reduction in the DIF was primarily due to an $11.6 billion increase in loss provisions for bank failures. Twenty-four insured institutions with combined assets of $26.4 billion failed during the second quarter of 2009, the largest number of quarterly failures since the fourth quarter of 1992, when 42 insured institutions failed. For 2009 through the end of the second quarter, 45 insured institutions with combined assets of $35.9 billion failed at an estimated current cost to the DIF of $10.5 billion.

The DIF’s reserve ratio was 0.22 percent on June 30, 2009, down from 0.27 percent at March 31, 2009, and 1.01 percent one year ago. The June figure is the lowest reserve ratio for the combined bank and thrift insurance fund since March 31, 1993, when the reserve ratio was 0.06 percent.

by Calculated Risk on 8/27/2009 08:30:00 AM

The DOL reports weekly unemployment insurance claims decreased to 570,000:

In the week ending Aug. 22, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 570,000, a decrease of 10,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 580,000. The 4-week moving average was 566,250, a decrease of 4,750 from the previous week's revised average of 571,000.
...
The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Aug. 15 was 6,133,000, a decrease of 119,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 6,252,000.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the 4-week moving average of weekly claims since 1971.

The four-week average of weekly unemployment claims decreased this week by 4,750 to 566,250, and is now 92,500 below the peak in April. It appears that initial weekly claims have peaked for this cycle.

The number of initial weekly claims is still very high (at 570,000), indicating significant weakness in the job market. The four-week average of initial weekly claims will probably have to fall below 400,000 before the total employment stops falling.

by Calculated Risk on 8/27/2009 12:16:00 AM

From Reuters: U.S. mortgage delinquencies up in July: Equifax

Among U.S. homeowners with mortgages, a record 7.32 percent were at least 30 days late on payments in July, up from about 4.5 percent a year earlier and 7.23 percent in June, according to monthly data from the Equifax credit bureau.

There numbers aren't directly comparable to the MBA quarterly numbers, but this shows that delinquencies are still rising.

by Calculated Risk on 8/26/2009 07:56:00 PM

From the DOT: Cash for Clunkers Stats

Number Submitted: 690,114
Dollar Value: $2,877.9M

This should push light vehicle sales to about 16 million (SAAR) in August. Of course the real question is what happens in September.

Darn - Floyd Norris beat me to it, but my table is sortable.

Using the Census Bureau population estimates, here is a table of dollars per person.

New Hampshire is the "Clunker State" by 'Dollars per person'. What happened in D.C.? No one wanted a new car? (UPDATE: several people told me almost everyone in D.C. buys cars in Virginia or Maryland)

NOTE: Columns are sortable - click on column headers: State (includes territories), Clunker dollars, Population, Dollars per person.

by Calculated Risk on 8/26/2009 05:48:00 PM

From Bloomberg: FDIC Sets Standards for Private-Equity Firms to Buy Shut Banks (ht Anthony)

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. approved guidelines for private-equity firms to buy failed banks ... agreeing to lower to 10 percent from the proposed 15 percent the Tier 1 capital ratio private-equity investors must maintain after buying a bank.

From the FDIC: Attachment: Final Statement of Policy of Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions

As a reminder, the deadline for Corus Bank bids is reported to be next week. So this is just in time.

Also, the Q2 FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile will probably be released tomorrow AM (including stats on the Deposit Insurance Fund and the number of problem banks at the end of Q2).

by Calculated Risk on 8/26/2009 03:59:00 PM

From the NY Times: Adjustable Mortgages Loom as Threat to Housing Recovery
(ht Shnaps, Ann)

When Harvey Clavon took out an exotic mortgage to refinance his home in Santa Clarita, Calif., three years ago, he thought he knew what he was doing.

Mr. Clavon, 63, was planning to sell the home in a few years and retire to Palm Springs. So he got a loan called an option adjustable rate mortgage, or option ARM, which allowed him the option of paying less than the interest for the first five years.

On his annual salary of $100,000 as a television camera operator, he could afford the $2,200 initial mortgage payments. And he would sell the home before the mortgage reset.
...
Mr. Clavon made only minimum payments on his mortgage, his balance has risen to $680,000 from $618,000, on a house worth closer to $400,000.

What a surprise!

And the article also has a quote from the Shnapster's friend Ted Jadlos on Option ARMs!

“Everyone’s been focused on subprime, but we’re more concerned about this,” said Todd Jadlos, managing director of LPS Applied Analytics ... “By the time subprime defaults had increased 200 percent, in June and July of 2007, option ARMs had gone up 400 percent. People just didn’t notice because the overall numbers weren’t as high.”

And some more mortgage fraud news: Task Force Cracks Mortgage Fraud Case Involving 453 Homes

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason today announced details of an 18-month investigation that led to indictments against 41 people and four companies. The defendants are alleged to have engaged in real estate transactions to purchase 453 homes with fraudulent loans totaling $44 million. ...

The scheme involved using straw buyers to purchase homes, falsely claiming home improvements were performed on houses in order to refinance them, and then selling houses to unqualified buyers with the assistance of real estate agents, mortgage brokers and title companies.

Lenders were tricked into believing that the buyers were making at least a 10% down payment when they were not, that the buyers had assets when they did not, and that the properties were worth more than they actually were. [Defendants] defrauded lenders through loan application fraud, down payment fraud and loan distribution fraud. The defendants siphoned off more than $31 million in profits from their criminal enterprise. Eventually, 358 of the homes fell into foreclosure.

Hey, almost 100 homes in this scheme are not in foreclosure!

As tax breaks expire, home sales decline ... from Reuters: California tax credit expires, home permits sink

Homebuilding permits filed in California in July fell significantly from June as a state tax credit for buyers of new homes expired ...

The tax credit offered earlier this year pulled homebuyers from the sidelines back into the state's beleaguered market for new homes but they have retreated since the incentive lapsed last month.

"Our homebuilders reported a significant drop in traffic last month, largely due to the state closing the window on the homebuyer tax credit," said Robert Rivinius, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Association.

He noted the state government stopped taking applications for the $10,000 new-home credit at the beginning of July.

"Activity stopped as quickly as it started, which is bad news for housing and the broader economy," Rivinius said.
emphasis added

Just imagine what will happen when the $8K first-time home buyer tax credit expires.

And a preview for BFF: Sioux City Bank at Risk of Failing

Vantus Bank, based in Sioux City, is at risk of failing because of the recession and rising bad loans.

Federal regulators have told the bank, which has 13 locations in Iowa, that its plan to increase its capital was unacceptable. According to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, it must be sold or liquidated by Sept. 30.

by Calculated Risk on 8/26/2009 02:15:00 PM

From the American Trucking Association: ATA Truck Tonnage Index Rose 2.1 Percent in July

Click on graph for slightly larger image in new window.

The American Trucking Associations’ advance seasonally adjusted (SA) For-Hire Truck Tonnage Index increased 2.1 percent in July. In June, SA tonnage fell 2.4 percent. July’s gain, which raised the SA index to 101.9 (2000=100), wasn’t large enough to completely offset the reduction in the previous month. The not seasonally adjusted (NSA) index, which represents the change in tonnage actually hauled by the fleets before any seasonal adjustment, equaled 106.3 in July, down 0.9 percent from June.

Compared with July 2008, SA tonnage fell 10.4 percent, which was the best year-over-year showing since February 2009. June’s 13.6 percent contraction was the largest year-over-year decrease of the current cycle.

ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said that truck tonnage will continue to be choppy in the months ahead, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. “It is not unusual for an economic indicator to become volatile before changing direction,” Costello noted. He is hopeful that truck tonnage has finally hit bottom as it has been bouncing around a seven-year low for the last few months. “While I am optimistic that the worst is behind us, I just don’t see anything on the economic horizon that suggests freight tonnage is about to rise significantly or consistently,” Costello said. “Still, even small gains are better than the February 2008 through April 2009 cumulative tonnage reduction of 15.5 percent.”

Once again it appears the cliff diving is over, and the index is now moving sideways and "choppy".

by Calculated Risk on 8/26/2009 12:35:00 PM

From Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart: The U.S. Economy and the Employment Challenge

On the economic outlook:

With respect to growth, my forecast envisions a return to positive but subdued gross domestic product (GDP) growth over the medium term weighed down by significant adjustments to our economy. Some of these adjustments are transitional in the sense that they impede the usual forces of recovery. Among these are the rewiring of the financial sector and the need for households to save more to repair their balance sheets.

Some of these adjustments, however, are more "structural" in nature. By this, I mean that the economy that emerges from this recession may not fully resemble the prerecession economy. In my view, it is unlikely that we will see a return of jobs lost in certain sectors, such as manufacturing. In a similar vein, the recession has been so deep in construction that a reallocation of workers is likely to happen—even if not permanent. ...

My forecast for a slow recovery implies a protracted period of high unemployment. And labor market weakness is a concern I hear about often as I travel around the Southeast.

And on Commercial real estate:

I'm concerned that commercial real estate weakness poses a serious potential risk to the economic recovery and to the banking system. Commercial real estate loan exposure is heavily concentrated in banks and commercial mortgage-backed securities. Commercial real estate values—that is, collateral values for loans—are being revised down materially by the potent combination of increased vacancy, rent reductions, and appropriately higher capitalization rates. Further, there is a clear link between employment trends (positive and negative) and commercial real estate trends.

On that note, here is a graph from a post in July:

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the office vacancy rate vs. the quarterly unemployment rate and recessions.

As Lockhart noted: "[T]here is a clear link between employment trends (positive and negative) and commercial real estate trends."

As the unemployment rate continues to rise over the next year, the office vacancy rate will probably rise too. Reis' forecast is for the office vacancy rate to peak at 18.2 percent in 2010, and for rents to continue to decline through 2011.

by Calculated Risk on 8/26/2009 11:18:00 AM

For graphs based on the new home sales report this morning, please see: New Home Sales Increase in July

According to the Q2 Campbell national survey of real estate agents, over 63% of sales in Q2 were distressed. The number of distressed sales has probably declined in Q3, but it is still very high. The July NAR survey shows "distressed homes accounted for 31 percent of transactions", but their survey is very limited. And even using the NAR numbers, distressed sales are running around 1.5 million this year.

All this distressed sales activity has created a gap between new and existing sales as shown in the following graph that I've jokingly labeled the "Distressing" gap.

This is an update including July new and existing home sales data.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows existing home sales (left axis) and new home sales (right axis) through July.

As I've noted before, I believe this gap was caused by distressed sales. Even with the recent rebound in new and existing home sales, the gap is still very wide.

The second graph shows the same information, but as a ratio for existing home sales divided by new home sales.

Although distressed sales will stay elevated for some time, eventually I expect this ratio to decline back to the previous ratio.

The ratio could decline because of a further increase in new home sales, or a decrease in existing home sales - or a combination of both. I expect the ratio will decline mostly from a decline in existing home sales as the first-time home buyer frenzy subsides, and as the foreclosure crisis moves into mid-to-high priced areas (with fewer cash flow investors).

From a longer term graph of the ratio, see my post last month.

by Calculated Risk on 8/26/2009 10:00:00 AM

The Census Bureau reports New Home Sales in July were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of 433 thousand. This is an increase from the revised rate of 395 thousand in June.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

The first graph shows monthly new home sales (NSA - Not Seasonally Adjusted).

Note the Red columns for 2009. This is the 3rd lowest sales for July since the Census Bureau started tracking sales in 1963.

In July 2009, 39 thousand new homes were sold (NSA); the record low was 31 thousand in July 1982; the record high for July was 117 thousand in 2005.

The second graph shows New Home Sales vs. recessions for the last 45 years. New Home sales fell off a cliff, but are now 32% above the low in January.

Sales of new one-family houses in July 2009 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 433,000 ...

This is 9.6 percent (±13.4%) above the revised June rate of 395,000, but is 13.4 percent (±12.9%) below the July 2008 estimate of 500,000.

And another long term graph - this one for New Home Months of Supply.

There were 7.5 months of supply in July - significantly below the all time record of 12.4 months of supply set in January.

The seasonally adjusted estimate of new houses for sale at the end of July was 271,000. This represents a supply of 7.5months at the current sales rate..

The final graph shows new home inventory.

Note that new home inventory does not include many condos (especially high rise condos), and areas with significant condo construction will have much higher inventory levels.

Months-of-supply and inventory have both peaked for this cycle, and there is a good chance that sales of new homes has also bottomed for this cycle. However any further recovery in sales will likely be modest because of the huge overhang of existing homes for sale.

I'll have more later ...

by Calculated Risk on 8/26/2009 08:55:00 AM

The MBA reports:

The Market Composite Index, a measure of mortgage loan application volume, increased 7.5 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis from one week earlier.
...
The Refinance Index increased 12.7 percent from the previous week, the third increase in the last four weeks. The seasonally adjusted Purchase Index increased 1.0 percent from one week earlier ... This marks the fourth consecutive weekly gain – the first time this has happened since March, when fixed mortgage rates first dropped and stayed below 5 percent.
...
The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages increased to 5.24 percent from 5.15 percent ...

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the MBA Purchase Index and four week moving average since 2002.

Note: The increase in 2007 was due to the method used to construct the index: a combination of lender failures, and borrowers filing multiple applications pushed up the index in 2007, even though activity was actually declining.

Even though sales of existing homes are up recently, the purchase index has only increased slightly. First-time home buyers using FHA loans would be included in the composite purchase index (the government index is up strongly over the last year), however this disconnect between sales and the MBA purchase index might be because of all the cash buyers at the low end - an example, from DataQuick on Las Vegas:

Of all buyers, those using cash to purchase their homes accounted for nearly 43 percent of all sales in July, based on an analysis of public property records. Specifically, these were transactions where there was no indication of a purchase mortgage recorded at the time of sale. ... All-cash deals have become popular in many Western markets where prices have dropped sharply and sellers favor the relative speed and certainty of all-cash buyers.

by Calculated Risk on 8/25/2009 09:39:00 PM

I've seen story after story today suggesting the bottom is in for house prices.

This isn't like 2005 when it was almost certain that prices would fall, and fall sharply. Now we are much closer to the bottom than to the top in prices (for some metrics, see House Prices: Real Prices, Price-to-Rent, and Price-to-Income)

In some areas prices have probably already hit bottom - like some non-bubble areas, and some bubble areas with significant foreclosure activity.

But I think many areas, especially the mid-to-high priced bubble areas, there will be further price declines. I'm not as certain as I was in 2005, but I think these price declines will drag down the Case-Shiller indexes - and I don't think the price bottom is in.

I do not have a crystal ball, but ...

It seems there are many more foreclosures coming. Some of this depends on the success of the modification programs, but the Q2 MBA delinquency report shows a growing number of homeowners in the problem pipeline.

And the Fitch report yesterday suggests few of these delinquent homeowners will cure.

That seems to mean rising foreclosures, and more distressed inventory. The MBA Chief Economist Jay Brinkmann thinks foreclosures will peak at the end of 2010.

Historically prices bottom about the same time as foreclosure activity peaks. Maybe it will be different this time - maybe the modification programs will significantly reduce foreclosures - maybe prices will bottom before foreclosures peak ... but I'll go with the normal pattern.

And on the demand side, there has been a surge in first-time homebuyer activity. There was significant pent up demand from potential first-time buyers who were priced out of the market in 2004-2006, and then were afraid to buy as prices fell. But demand from these buyers will probably wane later this year, even if another tax credit is enacted.

Just like the "cash-for-clunkers" demand declined after the initial burst.

For mid-to-high priced homes, there are few move-up buyers (or so it would seem since so many low end homes were distress sales). Right now the months-of-supply in many of these areas is well into double figures, suggesting further price declines.

And on unemployment: most forecasts are for unemployment to rise into next year some time. Historically house prices do not bottom until after unemployment peaks. That seems especially likely now since so many homeowners are underwater. Once again I'll go with the normal pattern.

Also looking back at previous housing busts (like I did earlier today looking at the early '90s) there are usually some months during the bust with increasing prices. So no one should expect every month to be negative during the bust ... especially are prices get closer to the bottom.

I could be wrong - this isn't as certain as in 2005 - but I don't think house prices have bottomed. If I'm proven wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.

Best to all.

by Calculated Risk on 8/25/2009 06:46:00 PM

From Matt Padilla at the O.C. Register: Housing demand could snag on mortgage insurance

Matt quotes an article from the National Mortgage News:

The GSEs can purchase single-family mortgages with loan-to-value ratios higher than 80% only if the homebuyer gets mortgage insurance. The FHFA Mortgage Market Note issued a few days after Mr. Lockhart’s departure projects that the demand for such high LTV loans could hit $230 billion in 2009. The ability of the MIs to meet that level of demand is “remote,” FHFA report says. “The industry’s ability to build and maintain sufficient capital to meet the needs of the enterprises over the short term without some federal assistance or an infusion of private capital is unclear,” the report concludes.
emphasis added

Another goverment program?