by Calculated Risk on 10/29/2009 11:47:00 AM

From HotelNewsNow.com: New Orleans ADR, RevPAR increase in STR weekly numbers

For the industry, in year-over-year measurements, occupancy fell 6.3 percent to end the week at 59.0 percent, ADR dropped 8.3 percent to US$100.04, and RevPAR decreased 14.1 percent to US$59.03.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the occupancy rate by week for each of the last four years (2006 through 2009 labeled by start of month).

Notes: the scale doesn't start at zero to better show the change. Thanksgiving was late in 2008, so the dip doesn't line up with the previous years.

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

The above graph shows two key points:

This is a two year slump for the hotel industry. Although occupancy is only off 6.3% compared to 2008, occupancy is off almost 13% compared to 2007.

There is a distinct seasonal pattern for the occupancy rate. The occupancy rate is higher in the summer (because of leisure travel), and lower on certain holidays.

The HotelNewsNow press release has two graphs on room rates (ADR: Average Daily Rate) and RevPAR variance comprared to 2008.

This graph shows the RevPAR variance by day, and indicates that business travel (weekdays) is still off more than leisure travel (weekends).

This has been an ongoing story ...

by Calculated Risk on 10/29/2009 10:00:00 AM

This morning the Census Bureau reported the homeownership and vacancy rates for Q3 2009. Here are a few graphs ...

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

The homeownership rate increased slightly to 67.6% and is now at the levels of Q2 2000.

Note: graph starts at 60% to better show the change.

The homeownership rate increased in the '90s and early '00s because of changes in demographics and "innovations" in mortgage lending. The increase due to demographics (older population) will probably stick, so I expect the rate to decline to the 66% to 67% range - and not all the way back to 64% to 65%.

The small increase in the homeownership rate in Q3 might by related to the first-time home buyer tax credit, but I expect the rate to decline further.

The homeowner vacancy rate was 2.6% in Q3 2009.

A normal rate for recent years appears to be about 1.7%.


This leaves the homeowner vacancy rate about 0.9% above normal, and with approximately 75.3 million homeowner occupied homes; this suggests there are close to 675 thousand excess vacant homes.

And as expected, as a result of the first-time homebuyer tax credit ...

The rental vacancy rate increased to a record 11.1% in Q3 2009.

It's hard to define a "normal" rental vacancy rate based on the historical series, but we can probably expect the rate to trend back towards 8%. According to the Census Bureau there are close to 40 million rental units in the U.S. If the rental vacancy rate declined from 11.1% to 8%, there would be 3.1% X 40 million units or about 1.25 million units absorbed.

These excess units will keep pressure on rents and house prices for some time.

by Calculated Risk on 10/29/2009 08:48:00 AM

The DOL reports weekly unemployment insurance claims decreased slightly to 530,000:

In the week ending Oct. 24, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 530,000, a decrease of 1,000 from the previous week's unrevised figure of 531,000. The 4-week moving average was 526,250, a decrease of 6,000 from the previous week's unrevised average of 532,250.
...
The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending Oct. 17 was 5,797,000, a decrease of 148,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 5,945,000.

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 6,000 to 526,250, and is now 132,500 below the peak in April. The significant decline from the peak strongly suggests that initial weekly claims have peaked for this cycle.

However, the key question is: Will claims continue to decline sharply, like following the recessions in the '70s and '80s, or will claims plateau for some time at an elevated level, as happened during the jobless recoveries in the early '90s and '00s?

The level is still very high suggesting continuing job losses ...

by Calculated Risk on 10/29/2009 08:30:00 AM

From the BEA:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the third quarter of 2009, (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
...
The upturn in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected upturns in PCE, in private inventory investment, in exports, and in residential fixed investment and a smaller decrease in nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by an upturn in imports, a downturn in state and local government spending, and a deceleration in federal government spending.
...
Real personal consumption expenditures increased 3.4 percent in the third quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 0.9 percent in the second.
...
Real nonresidential fixed investment decreased 2.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with a decrease of 9.6 percent in the second. Nonresidential structures decreased 9.0 percent, compared with a decrease of 17.3 percent. Equipment and software increased 1.1 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 4.9 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 23.4 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 23.3 percent.

This is close to expectations, and GDP in Q4 will probably be in the same range with more inventory restocking and stimulus spending. But the question is: what happens in 2010?

I'll have some more on investment later ...

by Calculated Risk on 10/28/2009 09:23:00 PM

CR Note: This is a guest post from albrt.

In re Olga: of Bankruptcy and Foreclosure.

An article by a person named Morgenson appeared in the New York Times last weekend, calling to our collective attention a New York bankruptcy case that adds to our collective knowledge of our collective foreclosure problem. Driven by a suspicion that the article would have helped us understand more if it had been written by someone other than the aforesaid Morgenson, your intrepid foreclosure correspondent dug into the record and filed the following report.

Picking on Poor Gretchen

First, for recent arrivals, there is a long and honored history at this site of Picking on Poor Gretchen. In this case I want to congratulate Morgenson, as it appears she did break this story herself rather than picking it up, unattributed, from bloggers. Let me also say I am not necessarily the best person to carry on the tradition of Picking on Poor Gretchen. I experimented with journalism in my youth, and I know how difficult it can be to get enough actual facts in a short time to fill up the number of column inches your editor is expecting from you.

But the more I thought about the Times article, the harder it was to escape the conclusion that Brad Delong is right – the print dinosaurs are doomed, and they have done it to themselves. The first few paragraphs of Morgenson’s purported article are appallingly fact-free and hyperbolic, or as Tanta put it, “Morgenson’s valid points are drowning in a sea of sensational swill.”

The article begins:

FOR decades, when troubled homeowners and banks battled over delinquent mortgages, it wasn’t a contest. Homes went into foreclosure, and lenders took control of the property.

On top of that, courts rubber-stamped the array of foreclosure charges that lenders heaped onto borrowers and took banks at their word when the lenders said they owned the mortgage notes underlying troubled properties.

* * *
But some judges are starting to scrutinize the rules-don’t-matter methods used by lenders and their lawyers in the recent foreclosure wave.

Morgenson deserves credit for finding this story, but it is hardly the first foreclosure-gone-wrong story of the decade, or even of the “recent foreclosure wave.” Morgenson has apparently forgotten the redoubtable Judge Boyko, who dismissed some Ohio foreclosure complaints in 2007 based on somewhat similar facts. We know Morgenson covered that story, so it is not clear to me whether the “decades” of judicial neglect and rubber stamping occurred before 2007 or after. But, well, whatever.

So What Happened In This Case?

Most of the sensational swill is in the first few paragraphs of this Times story. Once you get past the first third, Morgenson’s facts are basically correct. Unfortunately, much of the context is missing. For example, one of the things you would never guess from reading the Times article is that it matters whether you’re talking about a bankruptcy case or a foreclosure case. That is Takeaway Lesson Number One from this case: Bankruptcy is different from foreclosure.

The purpose of a foreclosure case is usually to allow a lender to take back collateral after the borrower stops paying on a loan. It should not be a surprise that lenders often win such cases, frequently by default. By contrast, the purpose of a bankruptcy case is to allow the debtor to restructure debt, distribute the available assets fairly among creditors, and extinguish debt that can’t realistically be paid. It should not be surprising that debtors “win” bankruptcy cases more often than foreclosure cases, especially if the debtor can show the lender has not followed the rules.

I will call the debtor in this case “Olga.” Her last name is redacted because she doesn’t seem to be seeking publicity. Olga filed bankruptcy under Chapter 13, which is a section of the bankruptcy code allowing individuals with regular income to develop a three or five year plan to pay their debts under supervision of a trustee. The debtor is protected from bill collectors, and most debts that can’t reasonably be paid are discharged. Chapter 13 theoretically allows the debtor to keep a mortgaged home if the debtor can catch up on payments within the plan period. The bankruptcy judge does not have the power to change the loan contract much, though, so many people can’t keep their homes using Chapter 13 unless the lender can somehow be “persuaded” to modify the loan.

But Olga was willing to try. She gave notice to creditors and filed a plan, among other things, and her mortgage servicer (PHH Mortgage Corp.) filed a proof of claim with a schedule stating how much was allegedly owed on Olga’s house. Olga’s lawyer noticed that PHH’s paperwork was not very complete, so he sent some information requests. He was not satisfied with the response, so he filed a motion to have PHH’s proof of claim expunged.

Olga’s Motion to Expunge

Mortgage servicers have important rights under the various contracts associated with the loan, but the servicer frequently is not, and PHH in this case was not, the actual owner of the note or the mortgage. In addition, the paperwork provided by PHH was woefully incomplete. Woefully incomplete paperwork can mean something different in bankruptcy than it does in foreclosure.

When your paperwork is woefully incomplete in a foreclosure case, you can ask for a delay or you can drop the case or have it dismissed, and you usually get another chance. Bankruptcy, by contrast, is kind of a one-shot deal by nature. The judge will add up all the debts, add up all the money available, approve a plan, and that’s it. Very limited do-overs.

Olga’s motion listed a number of problems:

PHH didn’t own the note.

The owner of the note was not joined in the proceeding.

PHH did not file all the documents necessary to show that it was authorized to bring the claim by the holder of the note.

PHH therefore is not the real party in interest and had no standing.

The documentation for the securitization trust that probably owns the note probably severely limits the way notes and mortgages can be handled, but

The mortgage documentation was not provided, so there is no way to know if it was assigned properly.

The note was provided, but it had an endorsement dated after the bankruptcy filing.

These items are explained a little bit more in Olga’s Response to the lender’s objection to her motion to expunge the proof of claim, which is a pretty good summary of things borrowers might want to think about when they are considering whether to contest foreclosures. MERS was a nominee at some point, but was not directly involved in the case.

My impression is that Olga’s lawyer did not expect the proof of claim to be expunged, and was primarily interested in getting more information and forcing the lender to negotiate. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain had other ideas – he expunged the claim.

The Aftermath

This is probably not the end of the story because, as Olga’s lawyer explained, a title company probably will not insure the title if Olga tries to sell the house without taking any further action. Judge Drain did not explain much in his order, but what seems to have gotten his attention is the likelihood that the note and mortgage really never were properly assigned to the securitization trust.

Takeaway Lesson Number Two from this case is that, if Judge Drain is right, this is not a nothingburger. This could apply to a large number of securitized mortgages based on the language of the securitization documents themselves, not on the quirks of local law. The decision has been appealed to the district court, so we will likely find out more unless the case settles.

Morgenson also noted that this decision was by a “federal judge.” It is probably worth noting that bankruptcy judges are not quite the same as U.S. District Court judges. Bankruptcy judges are not appointed for life, they only have jurisdiction over matters that are related to bankruptcy, and their decisions are appealable to a District Court judge, as happened in this case. But bankruptcy judges have a lot of power over core bankruptcy matters. This particular judge was the one who slashed executive compensation in the Delphi case.

In my opinion, Takeaway Lesson Number Three is this: lenders would probably have been better off with a reasonable cramdown provision in the bankruptcy laws. As Tanta explained in her cramdown post, home mortgages were often modified in bankruptcy proceedings before 1993. Morgenson’s claim that all types of court proceedings have uniformly favored lenders “for decades” is wrong, but the bankruptcy laws got a lot worse for consumers in 1993 and again in 2005. In the absence of reasonable solutions imposed by a bankruptcy judge, lawyers for debtors and home mortgage lenders sometimes act like Reagan and Brezhnev, threatening each other with nuclear options and hoping none of the tactical warheads go off prematurely. Which is what seems to have happened in this case.

CR Note: This is a guest post from albrt.

by Calculated Risk on 10/28/2009 05:54:00 PM

From Bloomberg: Senate Said to Revise Plan to Extend, Expand Homebuyer Credit (ht Anthony)

The article states the plan might still change .

The details:

Income eligibility for home buyers increases to $125,000 for individuals and $225,000 for couples.

The tax credit for first-time home buyers (anyone who has not owned in the last 3 years) will be the lesser of $8,000 or 10% of the purchase price.

For move-up buyers - "who have lived in their current home for at least five years" - the credit would be limited to $6,500.

The credit runs from Dec. 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010, with an additional 60 day period to close escrow. (So end of April to sign contract, end of June to close escrow)

The key change from yesterday is the increase in income limits for first-time home buyers (and somewhat minor changes to the size of the tax credit).

by Calculated Risk on 10/28/2009 03:17:00 PM

In July 2008 there were persistent rumors of a bank run at WaMu. According to a fascinating piece by Kirsten Grind at the Puget Sound Business Journal, the bank run was more than a rumor ...

From Ms. Grind: The downfall of Washington Mutual

To recreate WaMu’s final days, the Puget Sound Business Journal examined hundreds of pages of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and interviewed dozens of former WaMu executives and employees, as well as government regulators and outside observers.
...
These interviews show that WaMu suffered through not one but two bank runs in its final months. ...

In early July 2008, hundreds of people lined up outside the headquarters of IndyMac Bank in Pasadena, Calif. ... Fearing the bank was on the verge of failure, customers were pulling out their money. The line stretched down the block. ...

Two blocks away, managers at a large, white-columned WaMu branch watched the commotion. Soon, their own customers began asking, “Is my money safe?”
...
Through a flurry of sometimes heated emails, managers ... worked out a rough plan. WaMu’s deposit team would forecast the potential size of a run, based on daily data about cash outflows. Branch managers would try to reassure anxious customers. ...

Despite these efforts, WaMu suffered a $9.4 billion run — seven times bigger than IndyMac’s. Southern California became the epicenter, although customers all around the country pulled out cash. Unlike IndyMac, however, WaMu executives kept the five-alarm fire under wraps. No lines formed down the block. No TV cameras splashed the news. Shareholders never knew, either.
emphasis added

There is much more in the article.

Ms. Grind also notes that the Inspector General is expected to release a report on the WaMu failure soon.

by Calculated Risk on 10/28/2009 12:53:00 PM

Yesterday I heard a compromise had been reached on extending and expanding eligibility for the home buyer tax credit, and that the housing tax credit would be attached to the extension of unemployment benefits, and that the Senate would vote today - and a House vote would follow shortly.

Hold on ...

Albert Buzzo at CNBC reports: Senate Vote On Home-Buyer Tax Credit Unlikely Today. Buzzo says there is "no chance" the Senate will vote today on the home buyer's tax credit.

There was hope last night that a vote on one of several versions might be voted on Wednesday but a battle over legislation extending unemployment benefits is taking priority and right now there's "no agreement" on that issue ...

CNBC's Diana Olick provides the same details that I heard on the tax credit: A Compromise on Home Buyer Tax Credit? and adds:

[T]here may have been a bit of a revolt among Democrats who didn't want the controversial measure attached to the Unemployment Insurance bill.

And from Andy Sullivan and Corbett Daly at Reuters:

Reid had wanted to attach a bill to extend the homebuyer credit as an amendment to a bill to lengthen insurance benefits for unemployed workers. The Senate voted 87-13 on Tuesday to take up the insurance benefit bill, but did not attach the homebuyer tax credit to the measure as Reid had wanted.

Despite that apparent roadblock, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who has been involved in negotiations over the tax credit, told Reuters late on Tuesday that he expected the Senate would vote on the bill sometime this week.

As Ms. Olick concluded: "Stay tuned. It could all change dramatically."

by Calculated Risk on 10/28/2009 11:30:00 AM

Note: For graphs based on the new home sales report this morning, please see: New Home Sales Decrease in September

This is obvious but worth stating: new home sales are far more important for employment and the economy than existing home sales. When an existing home is sold, the housing stock doesn't change, and the only direct contribution to the economy are the transaction costs. When a new home is sold, the housing stock of the nation increases, and there is a significant amount of spending on material and labor.

During the housing bust, new home sales fell much further than existing home sales (as a percent of sales). I've jokingly referred to the difference in percentage declines as the "Distressing" gap, because of all the distressed sales of existing homes.

More recently the gap has been supported by misdirected government policy.

Here is a graph of the "gap":

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

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

I believe this gap was initially caused by distressed sales, but more recently the gap has also been widened as a result of the first-time home buyer tax credit.

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

The ratio is now at an all time record high.

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 an increase in new home sales, or a decrease in existing home sales - I expect a combination of both.

Although I think we've seen the bottom for new home sales, I think we will see further declines in existing home sales as the impact of the home-buyer tax credit wanes, and as we see fewer distressed sales in low priced areas.

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

The Census Bureau reports New Home Sales in September were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of 402 thousand. This is a decrease from the revised rate of 417 thousand in August (revised from 429 thousand).

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. Sales in September 2009 (31 thousand) were below September 2008 (35 thousand). This is the 3rd lowest sales for September since the Census Bureau started tracking sales in 1963.

In September 2009, 31 thousand new homes were sold (NSA); the record low was 28 thousand in September 1981; the record high for September was 99 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 22% above the low in January.

Sales of new one-family houses in September 2009 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 402,000 ...

This is 3.6 percent (±10.2%)* below the revised August rate of 417,000 and is 7.8 percent (±12.0%)* below the September 2008 estimate of 436,000.

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

There were 7.5 months of supply in September - 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 September was 251,000. This represents a supply of 7.5 months 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 new homes sales has probably also bottomed for this cycle. Sales were probably impacted by the end of the first-time home buyer tax credit (because of timing, new home sales are impacted before existing home sales).

New home sales are far more important for the economy than existing home sales, and new home sales will remain under pressure until the overhang of existing homes declines much further.

I'll have more later ...

by Calculated Risk on 10/28/2009 08:32:00 AM

The MBA reports: Mortgage Applications Decrease

The Market Composite Index, a measure of mortgage loan application volume, decreased 12.3 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis from one week earlier. ...

The Refinance Index decreased 16.2 percent from the previous week and the seasonally adjusted Purchase Index decreased 5.2 percent from one week earlier.
...
The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages decreased to 5.04 percent from 5.07 percent, with points increasing to 1.25 from 1.13 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent loan-to-value (LTV) ratio loans.

The purchase index is off almost 17% over the last 3 weeks, and the refinance index is off about 30%.

It appears the post home buyer tax credit slump has started, although apparently the tax credit will be extended and the eligibility expanded - so the slump might be delayed ...

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

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

The Purchase index declined to 254.9, and the 4-week moving average declined to 280.

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.

by Calculated Risk on 10/27/2009 08:23:00 PM

A busy day ... here is a summary:

From the WSJ: GMAC Asks for Fresh Lifeline. The WSJ is reporting GMAC is in "advanced" talks with Treasury for another bailout: "The U.S. government is likely to inject $2.8 billion to $5.6 billion of capital into [GMAC], on top of the $12.5 billion that GMAC has received since December 2008 ... "

The Home Buyer tax credit has apparently been extended, and eligibility expanded to include some move-up buyers. Details:

Income eligibility for first-time home buyers stays at $75,000 for individuals, and $150,000 for couples.

For move-up buyers, income eligibility is $125,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.

There is a minimum 5 year residency requirement - in their current home - for move-up home buyers.

The tax credit is the lesser of $7,290 or 10% of the purchase price.

The credit runs from Dec. 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010, with an additional 60 day period to close escrow. (So end of April to sign contract, end of June to close escrow)

Expect bill to be signed by Friday, packaged with the unemployment benefit extension.

From Dow Jones tonight: Office Landlords Cut Rents, Up Concessions To Stave Off Vacancies

Boston Properties Inc. ... reported Tuesday ... that gross rents declined 17% when comparing what new tenants are paying with the rent that had been paid by old tenants occupying that space. ... The results follow similar releases Monday by SL Green Realty Corp. (SLG), one of New York's largest office landlords, and Liberty Property Trust (LRY), of Malvern, Pa., which owns 700 properties including offices and light manufacturing.

Earlier I posted some interesting comments from the Liberty Property Trust conference call.

The Case-Shiller Home Price Index showed an increase in August. Here is a repeat of the graph:

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the nominal seasonally adjusted Composite 10 and Composite 20 indices (the Composite 20 was started in January 2000).

The Composite 10 index is off 32.5% from the peak, and up about 1.0% in August.

The Composite 20 index is off 31.3% from the peak, and up 1.0% in August.

Prices increased in 16 of the 20 Case-Shiller cities.

House prices are well above the bank stress test scenarios, see: House Prices: Stress Test and Price-to-Rent

by Calculated Risk on 10/27/2009 06:03:00 PM

UPDATE: I was told this is a done deal, but I haven't seen an announcement yet - so it might still change. The tax credit was expanded to move-up and higher income buyers. The amount of the credit was reduced to a maximum of $7,290.

From Bloomberg: Senate Close to Deal Replacing Homebuyer Tax Credit

The details:

Income eligibility for first-time home buyers stays at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.

For move-up buyers, income eligibility is $125,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.

There is a minimum 5 year residency requirement in their current home for move-up home buyers.

The tax credit is the lesser of $7,290 or 10% of the purchase price.

The credit runs from Dec. 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010, with an additional 60 day period to close escrow. (So end of April to sign contract, end of June to close escrow)

Expect bill to be signed by Friday.

This is obviously bad economics, but it must be good politics. The first-time home buyer impact will fade (and will probably cost over $100,000 per additional home sold). The move-up portion will probably be even less effective.

Apparently this tax credit will be combined with the extension of the unemployment benefits to avoid a veto (the real reason the extension was being held up).

by Calculated Risk on 10/27/2009 03:56:00 PM

Here is more on the housing tax credit debate ...

First, from Reuters: Democrats Agree to Extend Home-Buyer Tax Credit: Dodd

"We're close, we're close but I can't get into any details until it's a done deal," said Republican Senator Johnny Isakson.
...
Dodd and Isakson want to extend the credit through June of next year and broaden it to anyone buying a primary residence, not just first-time buyers.

I've heard reports that the "phase out" proposal is off the table, and the tax credit will run through April (backers of course will then try to extend it again). The latest report is the credit would be expanded with higher income limits, and would include certain move-up buyers (those who have lived in their current home for some number of years - perhaps five or more).

The details are changing constantly ...

by Calculated Risk on 10/27/2009 02:37:00 PM

Here are some comments worth reading for an understanding of the office and industrial CRE space from the Liberty Property Trust conference call. (ht Brian) Note: Liberty Property Trust owns both office and industrial properties.

LRY: During the third quarter we sold $63 million in operating properties at a 9.5% cap rate.

With respect to dispositions for 2009 through the end of the third quarter, we have sold $145 million in assets. We think the total for the year will be approximately $175 million. We see less activity for us in the sales area in 2010. We anticipate sales activity in 2010 to be in the 75 to $125 million range. The cap rate on these sales will be in the 9 to 11% range.

And the final item to discuss, the most significant, what do we expect for the same-store group of properties which represent over 90% of our revenue? For the first six months of 2009, rents for renewal and replacement leases increased by 2.8%. For the third quarter they decreased by 13.9%. We expect this third quarter experience to repeat itself for the balance of 2009 and for 2010. We are projecting that rents for 2010 will decrease by 10 to 15% on a straightline basis.
emphasis added

That is worth reading twice. Rents fell off a cliff in Q3, and the are projecting a significant decline over the next year. Combine that with double digit cap rates - and that means a serious decline in property values. UPDATE: the decline in rents in Q3 was in the pipeline: "[F]rom our perspective, what this quarter is showing is the effect of leases signed this year finally commencing and you seeing what's happening to the rents. So what you're seeing today is the effect of the decline in the rents over the over the first three quarters of the year."

LRY: In the second quarter we reported a pickup in [leasing] activity, more prospects and more tenants willing to make decisions, decisions which include taking advantage of real estate markets or advantageous rates. This trend continued in the third quarter where we signed leases for 3.5 million square feet of new, renewal and development pipeline space and 207 transactions. While there are deals in the market, there is clearly a bifurcation among landlords between the haves and the have-notes in terms of capital. Prospects and brokers are more concerned about a landlord's ability to deliver on its promises.

Although the troubled tenant phenomenon has significantly abated, leasing space is very much a deal by deal balancing act. The reality of the market is that the downward rental pressure is the norm, and most leases today are being signed at 10 to 15% below expiring rates. Pressure is more acute on new leases than on renewals. Concessions are primarily free rent and lower base rent. And tenant improvements are lower on renewals than replacement leases, but overall credit drives tenant improvement dollars. On the whole, market demand is well below that of a year ago. Most tenants are renewing and are either staying the same size or downsizing of the very few are expanding. In our markets, the average size of a new office and industrial lease is smaller by about 13%. In spite of weaker demand and lower rents, 85% of the renewals, and 90% of new leases contained contractual rent bumps, of 2% to 3% per year.

And from the Q&A:

Analyst: Can you talk about what you might be looking for in terms of acquisitions from either by asset or market or return expectation?

LRY: We've been following this fairly closely in a variety of ways, and it's pretty clear to us that what's happening to us in the market right now, is that the lending world, the banks, are dealing with an inflow of troubled real estate loans. What they're dealing with most immediately are condo projects, hotel projects, and a smattering of retail. There has been limited amount of office and industrial product that has kind of gotten into the -- all the way into the distress category and where the banks are taking it over. We think, though, that that might happen, that some product might get to that point and get recycled. Candidly I think the same lag effect with distress on these properties. These lenders are only gearing up sort of right now. There was one that somebody we talked to had 10 people in a workout unit and now they're up to 100. So they're kind of getting their arms around it.

In their view, lenders are dealing with condos, hotels and some retail. Those are the most overbuilt areas of commercial real estate.

Analyst: I just want to hear more on what's driving your viewpoint that industrial will rebound quicker than office.

LRY: The industrial space is going to respond to somewhat better consumer confidence. It's going to respond to increased trade activity. It's going to respond to any degree of stabilization in the housing market generally. So as the economy gets better, it's the easiest thing you can do, and you can do it very quickly, is put material back on racks in the warehouse and build up inventories. It takes employment increases to begin to put new seats -- new bodies in seats in offices. And given that the September job number still was a negative 263,000, that is to say we have yet to see a positive monthly job number, it just feels like that, that hiring aspect is a ways off, and once it starts, and we talked a little bit about this in some prior calls we think there is some amount of shadow space in the market, that is really manifesting itself in, you know, sort of every fifth desk in an office building is empty because of hiring freezes and job cuts over the last year and a half. So even when companies begin to hire we think they're going to first fill that desk before they need new space. And I think -- I think you really see the evidence of that, that is the shadow space, when you look at the average size of an office renewal in the markets we're in, I'm not talking about Liberty's performance, I'm talking about what is happening in the markets, and the average size of leases is down, which I think represents the fact that as leases expire and people come into the market, even to renew or to take a new space or taking less space than they had. Hence, the very significant absorption numbers we've seen in office. I think the way this plays out, materials back on racks in warehouses, I think that is why we're seeing some activity in the flex space. Because again that can be a smaller distribution play in a market. It can also be more of a tech company or a bio-tech kind of company, but that the classic office worker will be the last piece of this puzzle to come back into focus.

Analyst: What sort of job growth assumptions are in your occupancy target for next year. We're still bleeding jobs. If we have zero net jobs in the US next year do you think you hit your occupancy target?

LRY: Let me first talk about the job assumption number and then the question about the occupancy. Our opinion on this is that unfortunately we're going to see pretty timid job numbers. I think it's even conceivable that we have one or two more months of job losses. Our guess earlier this year was that we might hit 8 million jobs lost and we're at 7.3 so far, and jobs might not go positive until the beginning of next year, and I think you're going to see modest job numbers. You know, the kind of numbers that, you know, don't even keep up with population growth. So and as I said, and this is important in our thinking, we do believe that there is some amount of shadow space out there, that will eat up demand even when it begins to happen, so I think there's a quarter or two of lag in the office even when the job numbers get better before you start seeing it turn into positive absorption. So all of that net is we're assuming -- we're not looking for job growth to significantly affect our occupancy next year. We're looking at this plus or minus 1%, as a number that is consistent with where we see the world.

by Calculated Risk on 10/27/2009 01:53:00 PM

From the NY Times: The Case for More Stimulus. Excerpt:

... Washington is not providing a coherent plan for effective stimulus. The Senate has been hamstrung for nearly a month over the most basic relief-and-recovery boost: an extension of unemployment benefits. The Obama administration has called for an expensive crowd-pleaser of dubious effectiveness: sending every Social Security recipient an extra $250.
...
Other measures being floated are less effective than unemployment benefits and aid to states. Many of the $250 checks to Social Security beneficiaries will not be spent quickly, because many recipients have no pressing need for the extra money. Proposals by some lawmakers to extend and expand the $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers are even less well targeted. Since it was enacted in February, only an estimated 15 percent of buyers who claimed the credit needed the money to make the purchase. It’s not stimulus when you pay people to do something they would have done anyway. It’s waste.
emphasis added

It is hard to understand why the next round of stimulus should include any extension of the home-buyer tax credit. It has a minimal impact on unemployment, it is poorly targeted, and as the NY Times notes "It's waste".

Meanwhile, the AP is reporting of potential "massive" teacher layoffs in Arizona, and Tom Abate at the San Francisco Chronicle reports the underemployment rate in California is 21.9%: Underemployed compound state's jobless troubles:

The state Employment Development Department estimates that this underemployment rate hit 21.9 percent in September.

That figure includes 1.9 million jobless Californians, 1.4 million people who had to work part time, and 865,000 adults loosely described as discouraged.

"Underemployment is at the highest level since we started keeping these records in 1994," said economist Sylvia Allegretto of the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at UC Berkeley.

The best help for the housing market is reducing unemployment and thereby encouraging new household formation. New household formation is always low during a recession as people double up or move into their parent's basements. Once these people become confident in their employment prospects, they will be looking to move out of the basement - excluding of course Matthew McConaughey's character in "Failure to Launch".

Note: Reuters has more on the current status of the tax credit: Where's Home-Buyer Tax Credit Headed in the House, Senate?

Lawmakers in the Senate are debating whether to extend it, or even expand it, and a vote could come as early as Tuesday. The House, which would also need to approve the measure, has yet to act.

by Calculated Risk on 10/27/2009 10:35:00 AM

This following graph compares the Case-Shiller Composite 10 SA index with the Stress Test scenarios from the Treasury (stress test data is estimated from quarterly forecasts).

The Stress Test scenarios use the Composite 10 index and start in December. Here are the numbers:

Case-Shiller Composite 10 Index (SA), August: 156.4

Stress Test Baseline Scenario, August: 145.6

Stress Test More Adverse Scenario, August: 135.5

House prices are 7.4% higher than the baseline scenario, and 15% higher than the more adverse scenario.

There were three key economic stress test parameters: house prices, GDP and unemployment. Both house prices and GDP are performing better than the baseline scenario, and unemployment is performing worse than both stress test scenarios.

Price-to-Rent

In October 2004, Fed economist John Krainer and researcher Chishen Wei wrote a Fed letter on price to rent ratios: House Prices and Fundamental Value. Kainer and Wei presented a price-to-rent ratio using the OFHEO house price index and the Owners' Equivalent Rent (OER) from the BLS.

Here is a similar graph through August 2009 using the Case-Shiller Composite Indices (SA):

Click on image for larger graph in new window.

This graph shows the price to rent ratio (January 2000 = 1.0) for the Case-Shiller composite indices. For rents, the national Owners' Equivalent Rent from the BLS is used.

At the peak of the housing bubble it was obvious that prices were out of line with fundamentals. Now most of the adjustment in the price-to-rent ratio is behind us. It appears the ratio is still a little high, and I expect some further decline in prices - especially with rents now falling.

The BLS reported for September:

The increase [in CPI] occurred despite declines in the indexes for rent and owners' equivalent rent, the first decreases in those indexes since 1992.

The decrease in OER was at an annual rate of 1.7% and based on media reports, and apartment surveys, it appears rents will continue to decline for some time. This will push up the price-to-rent ratio unless house prices fall.

Note: some would argue the price-to-rent ratio being a little too high is reasonable based on mortgage rates and "affordability".

by Calculated Risk on 10/27/2009 09:15:00 AM

S&P/Case-Shiller released their monthly Home Price Indices for August this morning.

This monthly data includes prices for 20 individual cities, and two composite indices (10 cities and 20 cities). This is the Seasonally Adjusted data - some sites report the NSA data.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

The first graph shows the nominal seasonally adjusted Composite 10 and Composite 20 indices (the Composite 20 was started in January 2000).

The Composite 10 index is off 32.5% from the peak, and up about 1.0% in August.

The Composite 20 index is off 31.3% from the peak, and up 1.0% in August.

The second graph shows the Year over year change in both indices.

The Composite 10 is off 10.7% from August 2008.

The Composite 20 is off 11.4% from August 2008.

This is still a very significant YoY decline in prices.

The third graph shows the price declines from the peak for each city included in S&P/Case-Shiller indices.

Prices increased (SA) in 16 of the 20 Case-Shiller cities in August.

In Las Vegas, house prices have declined 55.6% from the peak. At the other end of the spectrum, prices in Dallas are only off about 4.8% from the peak - and up in 2009. Prices have declined by double digits from the peak in 18 of the 20 Case-Shiller cities.

The debate continues - is the price increase because of the seasonal mix (distressed sales vs. non-distressed sales), the impact of the first-time home buyer frenzy on prices, less supply because of modifications and the general slowdown in the foreclosure process, or have prices actually bottomed? My guess is we will see further house price declines in many areas.

I'll compare house prices to the stress test scenarios soon.

by Calculated Risk on 10/27/2009 09:10:00 AM

From MarketWatch: U.S. home prices rise 1.2% in Aug.: Case-Shiller

The market value of U.S. homes in 20 major cities rose by 1.2% compared with July [not seasonally adjusted] ... In August prices rose in 17 of 20 cities

Just headlines ... I'll post graphs after the data is released online.

by Calculated Risk on 10/27/2009 08:18:00 AM

While we wait for the August Case-Shiller house prices ...

Simon Johnson and James Kwak write in the WaPo: The home-buyer tax credit: Throwing good money after bad.

What happens when you artificially prop up housing prices? Imagine the credit were expanded to all home buyers and made permanent. This would simply boost housing prices at the low end of the market by close to $8,000, since all buyers would be willing to pay $8,000 more. (Prices would rise by a little less than $8,000 because at higher prices, more people would be willing to sell.) Whom does this benefit? Not first-time home buyers. It benefits people who already own houses (and their real estate agents) because it's a one-time boost in housing values. This would be just the latest chapter in a long history of government policies to boost housing prices -- the mortgage interest tax deduction, the capital gains exclusion on houses, the extension of the mortgage interest tax deduction to second houses, etc. Each of these policies pushes up prices just once; if you want to keep pushing up housing prices, you have to keep adding sweeteners.

A temporary tax credit has a similar effect, but for a shorter period of time. It boosts the price of a transaction that would have happened anyway. It may create additional transactions, but is that a good thing? If someone could not have afforded a house without the tax credit, then what is he or she going to do when the tax credit goes away and the price of the house falls? In effect, the tax credit is a way of making houses temporarily affordable that would not otherwise be affordable, and we know where that leads.
emphasis added