by Calculated Risk on 10/12/2009 08:43:00 AM

We are starting to exhaust the keyboard for the shape of the recovery ... and reuse letters!

Two different views:

From Bloomberg: Rosenberg Sees Low-To-No-Growth as Kantor Vows Vigorous Economy (ht jb)

“Right now the economy is being held together by very strong tape and glue provided by the Fed, Treasury and Congress,” [said David Rosenberg, Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc.] ... The current economy won’t resemble previous V-shaped recoveries, he says. “It’s going to look like this whole string of lowercase Ws for the next five years,” with periods of growth followed by periods of contraction.

And from Larry Kantor, head of research at Barclays Capital Inc. and former Fed economist:

“We think the recovery will be sustained,” ... “People talk about double-dips, the economy’s on life support and once it’s withdrawn everything is going to fall apart again. Business cycles typically don’t work that way.” ... Kantor ... says the parallel is closer to 1992, when the economy expanded 3.4 percent coming out of recession, or 1983, when it grew 4.5 percent.

Of course Rosenberg tends to be bearish, and I can't remember when Kantor wasn't bullish. He was worried about inflation in 2005 and bullish in June 2008.

But this does show the range of forecasts. My view is the recovery will be sluggish for some time.

by Calculated Risk on 10/11/2009 10:37:00 PM

Kind of a weird juxtaposition ...

From the WSJ: Foreclosures Grow in Housing Market's Top Tiers

About 30% of foreclosures in June involved homes in the top third of local housing values, up from 16% when the foreclosure crisis began three years ago, according to new data from real-estate Web site Zillow.com.

Meanwhile Jim the Realtor rides the Euphoria Express (mostly at the high end):

by Calculated Risk on 10/11/2009 04:45:00 PM

From Paul Krugman: When should the Fed raise rates? (even more wonkish)

Let me start with a rounded version of the Rudebusch version of the Taylor rule:

Fed funds target = 2 + 1.5 x inflation - 2 x excess unemployment

where inflation is measured by the change in the core PCE deflator over the past four quarters (currently 1.6), and excess unemployment is the different between the CBO estimate of the NAIRU (currently 4.8) and the actual unemployment rate (currently 9.8).

Right now, this rule says that the Fed funds rate should be -5.6%. So we’re hard up against the zero bound.

Suppose that core inflation stays at 1.6% (although in fact it’s almost sure to go lower.) Then we can back out the unemployment rate at which the target would cross zero, suggesting that tightening should begin: it’s an excess unemployment rate of 2.2, implying an actual rate of 7 percent. That’s a long way from here. ...

This is all back-of-the-envelope stuff - and maybe NAIRU or core inflation will be a little higher (although I think core inflation might be lower next year because of declining owners' equivalent rent).

If we use Krugman's analysis, and the recent CBO projections for the average annual unemployment rate (10.2% in 2010, 9.1% in 2011, and 7.2% in 2012), the Fed would not raise rates until some time in 2012.

Last month I wrote:

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows the effective Fed Funds rate (Source: Federal Reserve) and the unemployment rate (source: BLS)

In the early '90s, the Fed waited more than a 1 1/2 years after the unemployment rate peaked before raising rates. The unemployment rate had fallen from 7.8% to 6.6% before the Fed raised rates.

Following the peak unemployment rate in 2003 of 6.3%, the Fed waited a year to raise rates. The unemployment rate had fallen to 5.6% in June 2004 before the Fed raised rates.

Although there are other considerations, since the unemployment rate will probably continue to increase into 2010, I don't expect the Fed to raise rates until late in 2010 at the earliest - and more likely sometime in 2011.

Maybe 2011. Or maybe 2012. But talk of a rate hike in early 2010 seems crazy ...

by Calculated Risk on 10/11/2009 12:41:00 PM

Edward Robinson wrote a recent article for Bloomberg on the rise of independent research: ‘Sell’ for Research Renegades Becomes Business Off Wall Street (ht Eyal)

One of the analysts featured in the article is Ivy Zelman, formerly at Credit Suisse, and now at Zelman & Associates. Ms. Zelman became an internet favorite when she asked Toll Brothers CEO Bob Toll "Which Kool-aid are you drinking?" on the Q4 2006 Toll Brothers conference call.

On Zelman's current view:

Many of her clients are clamoring to know whether the market has hit bottom. In terms of prices, she says probably not: One out of three owners has a mortgage worth more than the value of the home, and mounting foreclosures and distressed properties are slated to account for 53 percent of home sales in 2010 compared with 40 percent in 2008, according to Moody’s.

“When that inventory hits the market, it’s going to undermine prices,” she says.

Although I think prices might have bottomed in some low end bubble areas at the end of 2008, or early 2009 - because of the flood of foreclosures at that time - some of these areas have seen prices increase 10% to 15% since then (according to local reports). This is because of a combination of a buying frenzy associated with the first time home buyer tax credit, and the lack of inventory because of foreclosure delays associated with the trial modifications. It is not unusual for homes in these areas to receive 20, 30 or 50 bids.

Even if the first time home buyer tax credit is extended, I think the interest will wane. Meanwhile the banks are preparing to start foreclosing again. The WSJ recently quoted a Bank of America Corp. spokeswoman: "We are going to see a spike from now to the end of the year in foreclosures as we take people out of the running" [for a loan modification].

So I expect prices in the low end areas to decline again (even if the bottom is in). I also expect further price declines in the mid-to-high end bubble areas. Note: this isn't like in 2005 when I thought large price declines were inevitable. House prices are much closer to the bottom now, and the U.S. government is trying to support house prices, or at least slow the rate of price declines.

by Calculated Risk on 10/11/2009 09:45:00 AM

“I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the bad loans occurred. It was an effort to keep prices from falling too fast. That’s a policy.”
Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee on recent FHA lending, quoted Oct 9th, 2009 in the NY Times.

"I believe the intent of the FTHB [first time home buyer] credit (and any extensions) is to raise the floor on home prices to delay (and sometimes prevent) defaults, reducing the shock to the financial system."
reader picosec in email, Oct 2nd, 2009

And a couple more quotes from an article by Alan Heavens in Philadelphia Inquirer: Skeptics question housing recovery :

"Government intervention to date has been extremely helpful in preventing an even more dramatic decline in home prices."
John Burns, real estate industry consultant

The housing market "is showing improvement only because it is on government life support."
Mark Zandi, Economy.com

As Representative Frank notes, the policy of the U.S. appears to be to support asset prices at almost any cost. This includes:

The FHA insuring "bad loans" for buyers with a high probability of default.

The first-time home buyer tax credit (the FTHB makes no sense from any other economic perspective).

Delaying foreclosures, first with moratoriums and then with "trial modifications".

We could probably include the Fed buying GSE MBS to lower mortgage rates, and other policies like increasing the "conforming loan" limit to $729,750 in high cost states.

Intentionally encouraging loans with high default rates (insured at taxpayer expense), and the FTHB tax credit (especially allowing buyers to use the credit as a down payment) have stimulated demand. And delaying foreclosures has restricted supply.

This has had the desired effect of pushing up asset prices, especially at the low end.

It is "a policy", but is it a good policy?