by Calculated Risk on 4/26/2009 12:04:00 AM

Just an open thread for discussion ... this story is concerning:

From the NY Times: Students Fall Ill in New York, and Swine Flu Is Likely Cause

Tests show that eight students at a Queens high school are likely to have contracted the human swine flu virus that has struck Mexico and a small number of other people in the United States, health officials in New York City said yesterday.

The students were among about 100 at St. Francis Preparatory School in Fresh Meadows who became sick in the last few days, said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, New York City’s health commissioner.

“All the cases were mild, no child was hospitalized, no child was seriously ill,” Dr. Frieden said.

by Calculated Risk on 4/25/2009 06:25:00 PM

Last night, economist Joseph Stiglitz, investor Bill Ackman (Pershing Square), and NY Times journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin discussed toxic assets with Charlie Rose. The entire discussion isn't available yet, but here is a short excerpt:

by Calculated Risk on 4/25/2009 02:45:00 PM

From Jon Lansner at the O.C. Register: No recovery seen for housing until late 2010. A few excerpts (not in order):

Nobody has a bigger stack of housing data than the First American real estate information empire from Santa Ana. We figured we’d ask Sam Khater, an economist at First American’s CoreLogic unit, what’s up ...

Lansner: Bottom this year?

Sam: I think, absolutely, there first chance for any kind of housing recovery is late 2010. We’ll see some bumps from the stimulus and the economy will look somewhat better than it really is. But we won’t see any housing bottom — and I’m talking prices — until late 2010. To me, the price is the most important thing.
...
Lansner: We seem to be enjoying a sales bump recently …

Sam: ... What you’re seeing in California is an uptick in distressed sales. All things being equal, the distressed sales will eventually wear off and sales will slow again.

... We have to remember what a normal year us. We’re not that far below, in terms of sales. You’ve got to view some of these housing numbers through a long-term series.
emphasis added

It seems most economists are looking for "stabilization" in existing home sales. I've been making the argument for some time that existing home sales will probably fall further, see: Home Sales: The Distressing Gap

And here is a long term graph:

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows existing home turnover as a percent of owner occupied units. Sales for 2009 are estimated at the March rate of 4.57 million units.

I've also included inventory as a percent of owner occupied units (all year-end inventory, except 2009 is for March).

The turnover rate is just below the median of the last 40 years - and will probably fall further in coming years.

Also - notice when Khater is talking a housing "bottom" he makes it clear he is talking prices. There are typically two bottoms for a housing bust - the first is for residential investment (new home sales, housing starts, etc.) and the second - usually much later - is for existing home prices.

by Calculated Risk on 4/25/2009 08:55:00 AM

From The Times: Spain's unemployment rate leaps to record high

According to the country's National Statistics Institute a record high figure of 17.4 per cent were unemployed in the first quarter of the year.

Unemployment leapt from 13.9 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2008, the biggest quarterly jump since 1976. Joblessness in Spain has almost doubled in a year.
...
Dominic Bryant, an economist with BNP Paribas, said: “The momentum is clearly there for something well above 20 per cent, it's odds on, really. My forecast is that it gets to something around about 23 per cent.”

And in Britain, from the Telegraph: British economy shrinks at fastest pace for 30 years during first quarter of 2009

Gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 1.9pc in the first quarter ... a sharper decline than the 1.6pc fall in the final quarter of 2008 when Britain officially entered recession.

It was the sharpest quarterly fall in GDP since 1979, when it fell by 2.4pc in the third quarter.

In the U.S. the headline GDP number is the real (inflation adjusted) quarterly change, seasonally adjusted at an annual rate (SAAR). In Britain and the EU, the headline GDP number is the real quarterly change, but it is not the annual rate. So a 1.9% decline in the U.K. is about the same as a 7.6% decline (SAAR) in the U.S. Ouch!

by Calculated Risk on 4/24/2009 10:04:00 PM

Note to the Fed: Clearly some analysts have the 12 categories and related indicative loss rates. To be fair, the Fed should release this additional information ASAP.

A few analyst quotes via Bloomberg: Rosner, Davis, Investors Comment on Fed Model for Stress Tests

“The anticipation over the white paper appears to be much ado about nothing. The most significant numbers provided by the Fed in the paper appear to be the page numbers.”
Josh Rosner, an analyst at Graham Fisher & Co. in New York.

“[C]ompletely worthless. We were looking for the translation of the economic forecasts to loan losses and we didn’t get that.”
David Trone, an analyst at Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia.

“The assumptions the regulators have used here seem to imply that they’re anticipating a bottoming out of the economic downturn. The momentum in the economy might potentially make the alternative more adverse scenario the baseline scenario.”
Jeff Davis, director of research at Howe Barnes Hoefer & Arnett in Chicago.

Each analyst makes a key point.

I think the only interesting number in the white paper was "12"; the Fed noted that the banks were "instructed to project losses for 12 separate categories of loans".

Based on how the Fed reports Charge-off and Delinquency Rates, we can guess the 12 categories (Update: these are listed in the appendix):

Residential real estate first liens, three categories: Prime, Alt-A, Subprime.

Residential real estate 2nd liens, two categories: closed end juniors, HELOCs.

Commercial real estate (CRE), three categories: Construction & Development (C&D), Multi-family, and other (nonfarm, nonresidential) Note: this is how the Fed breaks up CRE.

Consumer Loans, two categories: Credit Cards, Other.

Commercial & Industrial (C&I)

All other (agricultural, leases).

As David Trone noted, why didn't the Fed provide the "translation of the economic forecasts to loan losses"? The Fed noted that the banks "were provided with a range of indicative two‐year cumulative loss rates for each of the 12 loan categories for the baseline and more adverse scenarios." Why not provide these indicative loss rates?

Heck, the WSJ has leaked some of these loss rates:

The Wall Street Journal released details of a confidential document that the Federal Reserve gave banks in February. The document provided details about the formulas regulators used to assess loan losses in a worsening economic environment.
...
One scenario that assumed a 10.3% unemployment rate at the end of 2010 required banks to calculate two-year cumulative losses of 8.5% on mortgage portfolios, 11% on home-equity lines of credit, 8% on commercial and industrial loans, 12% on commercial real-estate loans and 20% on credit-card portfolios.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

Under those assumptions, 13 of the banks undergoing the stress tests could be hit with $240 billion of losses, according to Westwood Capital LLC.

Clearly Westwood Capital has the indicative loss rates - doesn't that create an unfair playing field that some people have the information and others do not?

And finally, as Jeff Davis noted (and I've been writing for some time), the "more adverse" scenario is the new baseline.