by Calculated Risk on 7/29/2009 09:06:00 AM

From David Streitfeld at the NY Times: Recovery Signs in Housing Market Stir Some Hope

After a plunge lasting three years, houses have finally become cheap enough to lure buyers. That, in turn, is stabilizing prices, generating hope that the real estate market is beginning to recover.

From Peter Hong at the LA Times: Home prices may be stabilizing, market tracker shows

Another sign emerged that the nation's struggling housing market may be nearing its bottom as a widely followed national home-price index posted its first gain in nearly three years.

The S&P/Case-Shiller index of home prices in 20 metropolitan areas was up slightly in May over its April level for the first time since 2006.

Now this is the same news as yesterday, but I just want to point out the widespread reporting of a possible bottom in housing prices. And because of the way Case-Shiller is constructed (with a three month moving average) there is a good chance prices will look positive for the June report too (to be released in August).

These are influential writers.

Streitfeld has been writing about the housing bubble and collapse for years. The Atlantic named him "The Bard of the Bubble" in 2006.

Hong has only been covering housing for a couple of years, but he has also done a very good job.

Of course I think house prices will continue to decline in the Fall, and that the May report was distorted by seasonal factors.

by Calculated Risk on 7/28/2009 10:45:00 PM

From the NY Times: Feds Push Mortgage Companies to Modify More Loans

The Obama administration, scrambling to get its main housing initiative on track, extracted a pledge from 25 mortgage company executives to improve their efforts to assist borrowers in danger of foreclosure.

In an all-day series of meetings Tuesday at the Treasury Department, government officials reached a verbal agreement with the executives for a new goal of about 500,000 loan modifications by Nov. 1 and stressed the program's urgency.

The sessions came amid concerns that the Obama administration will fall far short of its original goal of helping up to 3 million to 4 million troubled borrowers with modified loans.

As of this week, only about 200,000 borrowers were enrolled in three-month trial loan modifications ...

A "verbal agreement"?

Counting the number of mods might make for useful PR, but some mods are more effective than others. A capitalization of missed payments and fees, along with a rate reduction and/or extended term, are the most common modifications. But for homeowners with significant negative equity that is just "extend and pretend" and leads to a high redefault rate and just postpones foreclosure.

by Calculated Risk on 7/28/2009 07:30:00 PM

Nick Timiraos at the WSJ writes: Study Finds Underwater Borrowers Drowned Themselves with Refinancings (ht Jack)

Why are so many homeowners underwater on their mortgages?
...
Michael LaCour-Little, a finance professor at California State University at Fullerton, looked at 4,000 foreclosures in Southern California from 2006-08. He found that, at least in Southern California, borrowers who defaulted on their mortgages didn’t purchase their homes at the top of the market. Instead, the average acquisition was made in 2002 and many homes lost to foreclosure were bought in the 1990s. More than half of all borrowers who lost their homes had already refinanced at least once, and four out of five had a second mortgage.

Here is the study: Follow the Money: A Close Look at Recent Southern California Foreclosures

The conventional wisdom is that households who purchased at the top of the market during the recent housing bubble are those most at risk of default due to recent price declines, upward re-sets of adjustable rate mortgage instruments, the economic downturn, and other factors. Here we use public record data to study Southern California borrowers facing foreclosure in late 2006 and 2007. We estimate property values at the time of the scheduled foreclosure sale with the automated valuation model of a major financial institution and then track actual sales prices for those properties that actually sold, either at auction or as later as REO. We find that virtually all of the borrowers had taken large amounts of equity out of the property through refinancing and/or junior lien borrowing with total cash extracted exceeding $300 million. As a result, losses to lenders exceed those of borrowers by a substantial margin, calling into question policies aimed at protecting borrowers.
emphasis added

It may seem unfair that these homeowners receive help from the bank (or from the government), but as far as slowing foreclosures it really doesn't matter why the homeowner is underwater. I think the research from the Boston Fed suggesting the costs of foreclosure are less than the costs of modifications is a stronger argument against many mods.

by Calculated Risk on 7/28/2009 05:43:00 PM

To preface this post, here are my notes from the April 2008 Milken conference:

Sam Zell started by saying we need to separate commercial from residential. Commercial will be fine in his view (not my view). Also Zell thinks losses are overstated for investment banks and CDOs.

Zell isn't talking about new construction (CRE), rather he is talking about prices for existing CRE. He feels there is too much global demand ("liquidity") for prices to fall too far - especially for Class-A buildings.

A little over a year later several Class-A owners are just walking away.

Now today, from CNBC: Real Estate Bottom Will Turn Around Economy: Zell

After posting three straight months of positive data, the residential real estate market has reached an equilibrium where prices will stop falling, said Sam Zell, founder and chairman of Equity Group Investments. This, in turn, will spark stabilization throughout the rest of the economy.

If single family housing starts and new home sales have found a bottom, then that will remove a key drag from the economy and employment. That is a positive. But I think Zell is wrong on house prices. I think the pace of declines will slow, but that there will be a long tail for real prices.

I could be wrong ... and I think different areas will bottom at different times, and some lower priced areas with heavy foreclosure activity might be at or near a bottom (same with some non-bubble areas). But in general, I think prices will fall further.

by Calculated Risk on 7/28/2009 03:43:00 PM

This is very different for me ...

First, if I've let a little hubris slip into my recent posts, I apologize. My goal is to be the most humble blogger in the world (an old joke).

Second, I am not an investment advisor and I do not offer investment advice. I try to provide some hopefully useful data with sources - especially concerning real estate - and then add my own analysis. Nothing here is intended as investment advice.

Please keep the above in mind ... and although I rarely discuss investing, I'd like to quickly explain why I went mostly long in my own portfolio in late February and early March. Several readers can vouch for my change in view (like Brian and Michael). I only share my investment ideas with people I know - and who I know are responsible for their own actions.

Sentiment in February and March was for a Great Depression II, and it was clear to me that several key indicators were about to change: auto sales, single family starts and new home sales were three I mentioned frequently on this blog. I figured when that data changed, the sentiment would change. Buying at the time was difficult. And yes, I'm still long (although that could change at any time, and I will not disclose it).

The reason I bring this up is the Case-Shiller report today really bothered me. To be more accurate, the reporting on the Case-Shiller report bothers me. As I mentioned earlier today, there is a strong seasonal component to house prices, and although the seasonally adjusted Case-Shiller index was down (Case-Shiller was reported as up by the media) - I don't think the seasonal factor accurately captures the recent swings in the NSA data.

I have no crystal ball - and maybe prices have bottomed - but this potentially means a negative surprise for the market later this year - perhaps when the October or November Case-Shiller data is released (October will be released near the end of December). If exuberance builds about house prices, and the market receives a negative surprise, be careful. Just something to watch later this year (I will post about house prices, but I will not mention the possible impact on the stock market in future posts).

And a few comments on the reporting today. The WSJ reported: Home Prices Post Monthly Increase, Data Are Latest to Signal a Bottom in the Property Market

The Case-Shiller index of home prices in 20 metropolitan areas, produced by Standard & Poor's, rose 0.5% in May from the month before, the first increase after 34 straight months of decline.

No mention that they are using the NSA data. And this would be a weird housing cycle if residential investment and house prices bottomed at almost the same time. See: Housing: Remember the Two Bottoms!

And from MSNBC: Crescenzi: Case-Shiller Supports Risk Assets

If there’s one indicator that investors are likely to embrace as their yardstick for the housing market predicament it is the Case-Shiller home price index. This is the index that turned lower in 2006, presaging the eruption of the credit crisis. Its apparent stabilization hence marks a turn in the housing dilemma.

Although a plethora of data have pointed to stabilization in housing of late, only the Case-Shiller index has the power to sway doubters, chiefly because it captures trends in the subprime mortgage market better than other indicators.

Like I said, I could be wrong about prices ... but this is the kind of information that is being disseminated by the MSM, and that means a negative surprise is possible.

Not to just pick on the MSM reporting. I was sent (by several readers) a housing analysis yesterday. It was some sort of weird mash up between the excellent David Rosenberg and some blogger. The charts are great, but the analysis is sometimes inaccurate. The "research" made comments like this for the NAHB HMI: “Sales outlook is stuck at 26, and anything under 50 is a contraction”. Not correct. The NAHB index is a sentiment indicator and doesn’t indicate contraction. Any number under 50 indicates more builders view sales as poor than good. See this chart - the index moves with new home sales and housing starts. And another example: "Architectural billings Index slipped five points last month to 37.7 - a sign residential construction is just bouncing along bottom". The ABI is primarily for non-residential construction.

I'm not trying to pick on or embarrass any particular publication or blogger. But it helps to know your sources. And I could be wrong about prices; we will know when the October and November data is released (a six month wait!)

Best to all. Now back to my regular posts ...