by Calculated Risk on 7/05/2009 07:03:00 PM

From ABC's This Week, George Stephanopoulos interviews Vice President Joe Biden:

STEPHANOPOULOS: While we've been here, some pretty grim job numbers back at home -- 9.5 percent unemployment in June, the worst numbers in 26 years.

How do you explain that? Because when the president and you all were selling the stimulus package, you predicted at the beginning that, to get this package in place, unemployment will peak at about 8 percent. So, either you misread the economy, or the stimulus package is too slow and to small.

BIDEN: The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there.
...
BIDEN: ... So the second question becomes, did the economic package we put in place, including the Recovery Act, is it the right package given the circumstances we're in? And we believe it is the right package given the circumstances we're in.

We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package. The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of money.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, but a lot of people were saying that you needed to do something bigger and bolder then, including the economist Paul Krugman. He's saying -- right now he's saying the same thing again -- don't wait. You need a second stimulus, you need it now.

BIDEN: Look, what we have to do now is we have to properly, adequately, transparently and effectively spend out the $787 billion.
...
The question is, how do you now -- do we -- what we have to do, George, is we have to, as this rolls out, put more pace on the ball. The second hundred days you're going to see a lot more jobs created.

And the reason you are is now all of these contracts for the over several thousand highway projects that have approved.
...
STEPHANOPOULOS: ? today are going to run out of unemployment in September. That means for a lot of those people, if there is not a second stimulus, they're going to be out in the cold.

BIDEN: Well, look, we have increased the amount of money unemployed -- those on unemployment rolls have gotten, 12 million are getting more money because of the stimulus package.

We've increased the number of people eligible by 2 million people. We've given a tax cut to 95 percent of the people who get a pay stub. They have somewhere -- $60 bucks a month out there that's going into the economy.

There is a lot going on, George. And I think it's premature to make the judgment?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no second stimulus?

BIDEN: No, I didn't say that. I think it's premature to make that judgment. This was set up to spend out over 18 months. ... And so this is just starting, the pace of the ball is now going to increase.

Here is the January forecast with the BLS reported data ...

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph compares the BLS reported monthly unemployment rate (in red) with the Obama economic forecast from January 10th: The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan

The Obama administration underestimated the rise in unemployment (so did I last year), so the question is: does this mean a 2nd stimulus plan?

Krugman says don't wait:

But never mind the hoocoodanodes and ayatollahyaseaux. What’s important now is that we don’t compound the understimulus mistake by adopting what Biden seems to be proposing — namely, a wait and see approach. Fiscal stimulus takes time. If we wait to see whether round one did the trick, round two won’t have much chance of doing a lot of good before late 2010 or beyond.

Update: as of June, almost 4.4 million people were unemployed and had exhausted their regular unemployment benefits. Most are now receiving extended benefits, but - at the least - it might be prudent to have additional extended benefits ready to go later this year.

by Calculated Risk on 7/05/2009 05:08:00 PM

The following article suggests that the large number of part time workers will slow any labor recovery:

‘I don’t need to hire anybody new. I need to work my existing workers more.’

That seems to make sense, but I wondered if it has been true in previous recessions (that a large number of part time workers - for economic reasons - became fully employed before the unemployment rate started to decline).

Here is the article from The Boston Globe: Grappling with part-time work

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 9.1 million Americans working part time for economic reasons, more than double the 4.5 million in 2007. That compares with a 50 percent rise in the recession of 1981-82 and a 25 percent increase in the recession of 1990.
...
For the economy as a whole, the glut of part-time workers could slow any recovery.

“At no time have we ever seen an increase of that magnitude, which is why labor markets are far weaker than the unemployment rate is telling us,’’ says Andrew Sum, director of Northeastern University’s Center for Labor Market Studies.

“When the economy turns around if you have so many people that are in slack work, you’ll say, ‘I don’t need to hire anybody new. I need to work my existing workers more.’ It’s going to be a lot harder to bring the unemployment rate down.’’

The following graph shows the unemployment rate and the percent of the civilian labor force that is working part time for economic reasons.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

Looking back at previous recessions, it doesn't appear that there was a decline in part time workers (for economic reasons) prior to a decline in the unemployment rate.

That doesn't mean part time workers aren't hurting - many are (as noted in the article), but it appears the the number of part time workers, and the unemployment rate, usually peak at about the same time. This time might be different, but I wouldn't count on it.

by Calculated Risk on 7/05/2009 01:27:00 PM

Rising vacancies. Falling rents. Negative absorption. The trend continues ...

From the Baltimore Business Journal: D.C. area office vacancies reach 12.3%

The Washington, D.C., area’s commercial real estate market saw a net absorption of negative 726,100 square feet in the second quarter, the third straight quarter of negative absorption ... the Washington region’s office vacancy rate has now reached 12.3 percent.

... "we are entering into a period of steady rent declines" [said Kevin Thorpe, director of market research for Cassidy & Pinkard Colliers]
emphasis added

From Reuters: Manhattan office vacancy hits 15-year high-report

The vacancy rate for top quality Midtown Manhattan office buildings reached its highest level in 15 years and asking rents fell nearly 11 percent in the second quarter, a Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL.N) report said.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

For Q1, REIS reported the office vacancy rate nationwide rose to 15.2% from 14.5% in Q4 2008.

This graph shows the office vacancy rate starting 1991.

The Q2 data should be released this week.

by Calculated Risk on 7/05/2009 09:43:00 AM

From Lauren Beale at the Los Angeles Times: Vacancies give renters room to negotiate

The first quarter saw the largest rent decline in a decade for Los Angeles County, Reis' [Victor Calanog, director of research] said. Effective rents, those that take concessions into account, fell 1.7% in the first quarter of this year from the fourth quarter of 2008, while asking rents dropped 1%.

And vacancy rates are rising:

The rate climbed to 5.3% in the first quarter from 3.8% in the first quarter of 2008, said [Reis' Calanog] ... In contrast, vacancies had been hovering between 2% and 3% for the last decade.
...
The last time vacancy rates were this high in Los Angeles County was in the early 1990s, when they hit 5%.

Declining rents puts more pressure on house prices ... and rents could continue to fall through 2010.

Here are some comments from BRE (a REIT) in February:

We believe we are looking at a negative rent curve for the next two years.

We believe on a composite basis, market rents in 2009 could fall between 3 and 6% from peak levels in 2008. And the rent cuts in 2010 could be deeper ...

by Calculated Risk on 7/04/2009 10:52:00 PM

From Gretchen Morgenson at the NY Times: So Many Foreclosures, So Little Logic

Alan M. White, an assistant professor at the Valparaiso University law school in Indiana analyzed data on 3.5 million subprime and alt-A mortgages in securitization pools overseen by Wells Fargo.
...
In June, the data show almost 32,000 liquidation sales; the average loss on those was 64.7 percent of the original loan balance.

Here are the numbers: the average loan balance began at almost $223,000. But in the liquidation sale, the property sold for $144,000 less, on average. ...

Loss severities, like foreclosures, are rising. In November, losses averaged 56.1 percent of the original loan balance; in February, 63.3 percent.

Well, it is an article by poor Gretchen, so we need to highlight a funny...

Loan modifications occur when a lender agrees to change terms of a troubled borrower’s mortgage; the most common approach is to reduce the loan’s interest rate. ... Lenders and their representatives, however, don’t like to modify loans through interest rate cuts ...

I guess they don't like doing the most common approach!

Note: the database analyzed by Professor White is for subprime and Alt-A only, whereas the OCC data includes prime loans - so it is hard to compare. Here is the OCC report for Q1: OCC and OTS: Prime Delinquencies Surge in Q1
And a couple of earlier posts on the OCC report:

OCC and OTS: Prime Delinquencies Surge in Q1

Modifications and Re-Default