by Calculated Risk on 6/20/2011 08:40:00 AM

From the NY Times: Deal on Lifeline to Avert Greek Bankruptcy Is Postponed

Europe’s finance ministers unexpectedly put off approval early Monday of the next installment of aid to debt-laden Greece, delaying the decision until July and demanding that the Greek Parliament first approve spending cuts and financial reforms ... Athens needs the next payout of 12 billion euros from its existing 110 billion euro bailout package by mid-July in order to remain solvent.

From the WSJ: Finance Ministers Struggle With Long-Term Fix, but Get Closer on Short-Term Cash

Greece will run out of cash in the middle of next month unless funds earmarked under last year's bailout are released. Unwilling to let that happen, finance ministers are likely to approve disbursement of €8.7 billion; the International Monetary Fund, which is also contributing to the bailout, would likely agree to pay out €3.3 billion in the coming weeks.
...
In the early hours of Monday morning, [finance ministers] released a statement saying they would decide on the "main parameters" of a new bailout package in July. The statement said the new bailout would include "informal and voluntary" arrangements with creditors that would produce a "substantial reduction" in the amount of new funding necessary—but without casting Greece into default.

The Greek 2 year yield is at 28.4%. The ten year yields are up to 17.4%.

Weekend:
• Summary for Week Ending June 17th
• Schedule for Week of June 19th
• FOMC Meeting Preview

by Calculated Risk on 6/19/2011 07:03:00 PM

Here is a story about some farmers who sold land to home builders during the bubble - and are now buying back land at a fraction of the price ...

From Mary Ellen Podmolik at the Chicago Tribune: Shrewd investments enable farmers to live off the land they sold, then bought

... the [Baltz] brothers stood ... on 246 acres that, at their peak, sold for $65,000 an acre and in 2005 were annexed by the village and zoned for more than 400 single-family detached homes.

The Baltz brothers paid $3.6 million, or about $14,500 an acre, for land that already has subdivision utilities brought to the property line. This year, though, the only thing rising out of the dirt will be the corn that Bob Baltz planted last month.

And another example (not buying back the same land - but similar):

Bob Dhuse, whose family has been farming southwest of Chicago since the 1850s, decided to split up the family's Kendall County land seven years ago, selling 90 acres for $34,000 to a housing developer.

... last fall he paid $12,000 to $15,000 an acre for land on the west side of Joliet that was to be a project of Neumann Homes, which, like competitors Kimball Hill, Kirk Corp. and Pasquinelli, all went bankrupt.

Nice timing!

Earlier:
• Summary for Week Ending June 17th
• Schedule for Week of June 19th
• FOMC Meeting Preview

by Calculated Risk on 6/19/2011 12:15:00 PM

There will be a two day meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) this coming Tuesday and Wednesday. I expect no changes to the Fed Funds rate, or to the program to reinvest principal payments, or to the Large Scale Asset Purchase program that is scheduled to end this month (LSAP, aka "QE2"). Basically the Fed is on hold.

Jon Hilsenrath at the WSJ summed it up last week: No Fed Shift Seen at June Gathering

Fed officials are neither looking to tighten nor to ease monetary policy as they prepare for the meeting June 21 and 22 of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Fed's decision-making body.

With job gains potentially slowing, housing prices sliding and consumers spending cautiously, officials don't want to tighten financial conditions. This means they will maintain short-term interest rates near zero and keep the central bank's $2.6 trillion of securities holdings from shrinking. At the same time, because inflation has picked up, they're reluctant to embrace new initiatives aimed at boosting growth.

On Friday, Goldman Sachs economist Sven Jari Stehn argued that there is a large "zone of inaction" for the Fed, and it would take a large surprise (much slower economy or much higher inflation) to get the Fed to take action. From Stehn:

"Our analysis ... suggests that larger surprises than those seen in recent weeks are needed for the FOMC to move out of its zone of inaction. We conclude that the ... weakness in growth and uncertainty about the effect of temporary factors will keep policy and, most likely, policy communication unchanged for the foreseeable future.

The implication of this analysis for next week’s FOMC press conference is that Chairman Bernanke is likely to stay far away from indicating any changes in the policy stance. Most likely, he will be “balanced” by emphasizing both the disappointment in the activity indicators and the higher inflation data. So the press conference is unlikely to be pleasant for either the chairman or his audience."

Concerning the recent slowdown - it is difficult to distinguish between temporary factors or something worse - so the Fed will probably remain on hold until the situation is more clear. The temporary factors include the supply chain issues related to the tragic events in Japan, the sharp increase in oil and gasoline prices partially attributable to events in the Middle East and North Africa, and possibly the severe weather in the U.S.

Remember, in early April Bernanke said:

"I think the increase in inflation will be transitory," ... He attributed the strong gain in global energy and food prices to supply and demand conditions, adding he reckons these prices "will eventually stabilize."

Since then oil and gasoline prices have fallen sharply, but core inflation has ticked up a little.

Some things to look for:

1) Fed Chairman Press Briefing. This is the second of the new press briefings. The FOMC statement will be released earlier than usual - around 12:30 PM ET on Wednesday, and the Chairman's press briefing will be held at 2:15 PM.

At the press briefing, Chairman Bernanke is expected to discuss the new FOMC forecasts (these forecasts used to be released a few weeks after the FOMC meeting with the minutes). Growth forecasts have probably been revised down since April, the unemployment rate revised up, and inflation forecasts might have been revised up.

Here are the updated forecasts through April. The FOMC GDP forecasts for 2011 were revised down in April, and will probably be revised down again in June.

GDP projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents
Change in Real GDP1	2011	2012	2013
Jan 2011 Projections	3.4 to 3.9	3.5 to 4.4	3.7 to 4.6
April 2011 Projections	3.1 to 3.3	3.5 to 4.2	3.5 to 4.3
June 2011 Projections	???	???	???

¹ Projections of change in real GDP and in inflation are from the fourth quarter of the previous year to the fourth quarter of the year indicated.

The unemployment rate was revised down in April, but with the uptick in the unemployment rate over the last two months to 9.1%, the unemployment rate for Q4 2011 will probably be revised up this time.

Unemployment projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents
Unemployment Rate2	2011	2012	2013
Jan 2011 Projections	8.8 to 9.0	7.6 to 8.1	6.8 to 7.2
April 2011 Projections	8.4 to 8.7	7.6 to 7.9	6.8 to 7.2
June 2011 Projections	???	???	???

² Projections for the unemployment rate are for the average civilian unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of the year indicated.

I suspect inflation will be a key topic at the FOMC meeting. The forecasts for overall and core inflation were revised up in April and will probably be revised up again in June.

Inflation projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents
PCE Inflation1	2011	2012	2013
Jan 2011 Projections	1.3 to 1.7	1.0 to 1.9	1.2 to 2.0
April 2011 Projections	2.1 to 2.8	1.2 to 2.0	1.4 to 2.0
June 2011 Projections	???	???	???

Core Inflation projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents
Core Inflation1	2011	2012	2013
Jan 2011 Projections	1.0 to 1.3	1.0 to 1.5	1.2 to 2.0
April 2011 Projections	1.3 to 1.6	1.3 to 1.8	1.4 to 2.0
June 2011 Projections	???	???	???

2) Possible Statement Changes. I don't expect the key sentence "likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate for an extended period" to be changed any time soon.

There will probably be some changes to the first paragraph to mention the recent softer economic data and pickup in inflation - however the statement will probably say the increase in inflation is expected to be transitory. I expect the phrase "the economic recovery is proceeding at a moderate pace" to be downgraded a little. And the word subdued might be changed in the phrase on inflation: "Inflation has picked up in recent months, but longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable and measures of underlying inflation are still subdued."

3) Timeline for the Fed. Remember all those "analysts" saying QE2 would end early and predicting the Fed would raise rates this year? Wrong again ...

QE2 will end in June as scheduled. It also appears the Fed will continue to reinvest maturing securities - at least for a couple of months following the end of QE2 (the next meeting is in August). This means the Fed's balance sheet will remain stable following the completion of QE2 - until the economy weakens further or the pace of growth picks up.

The next step for the Fed - after the end of QE2 - will be to either: 1) end the reinvestment (if economic growth improves), or 2) launch QE3 (if the economy weakens). I don't think either action is likely in the near term.

And this means the Fed will not raise rates for, well, an "extended period". If they do end reinvestment in the next few months, they will probably wait even longer to drop the "extended period" language, and then a couple more meetings (at least) before they raise rates.

Yesterday:
• Summary for Week Ending June 17th
• Schedule for Week of June 19th

by Calculated Risk on 6/19/2011 09:27:00 AM

From David Streitfeld at the NY Times: Backlog of Cases Gives a Reprieve on Foreclosures

In New York State, it would take lenders 62 years at their current pace, the longest time frame in the nation, to repossess the 213,000 houses now in severe default or foreclosure, according to calculations by LPS Applied Analytics, a prominent real estate data firm.

Clearing the pipeline in New Jersey, which like New York handles foreclosures through the courts, would take 49 years. In Florida, Massachusetts and Illinois, it would take a decade.

In the 27 states where the courts play no role in foreclosures, the pace is much more brisk — three years in California, two years in Nevada and Colorado — but the dynamic is the same: the foreclosure system is bogged down by the volume of cases ...

Of course, because the denominator has declined - and the numerator is still very high - these time frames seem absurd. As an example:

Last September, before the documentation crisis, nearly 1,500 New Yorkers lost their houses as a result of foreclosure, according to LPS. The average over the last six months: 286.

So in New York, with 213,000 homes in severe default or foreclosure, and only 286 completed foreclosures per month, gives a backlog of 62 years.

Some of this is due to process delays for some lenders. Some is because lenders are trying to modify more loans. Some is because the lenders already have plenty of REOs (Real Estate Owned).

It won't take anything like 62 years to clear the backlog, but it does show there is a long way to go.

Note: This doesn't quite fit with the recent reports that Fannie, Freddie and the FHA are all completing foreclosures (and selling REO) at a record pace right now ...

by Calculated Risk on 6/18/2011 10:28:00 PM

Earlier:
• Summary for Week Ending June 17th
• Schedule for Week of June 19th

From the WaPo: With executive pay, rich pull away from rest of America

The top 0.1 percent of earners make about $1.7 million or more, including capital gains. Of those, 41 percent were executives, managers and supervisors at non-financial companies, according to the analysis, with nearly half of them deriving most of their income from their ownership in privately-held firms. An additional 18 percent were managers at financial firms or financial professionals at any sort of firm.
...
Income inequality has been on the rise for decades in several nations, including the United Kingdom, China and India, but it has been most pronounced in the United States, economists say.

In 1975, for example, the top 0.1 percent of earners garnered about 2.5 percent of the nation’s income, including capital gains, according to data collected by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez. By 2008, that share had quadrupled and stood at 10.4 percent.

The phenomenon is even more pronounced at even higher levels of income. The share of the income commanded by the top 0.01 percent rose from 0.85 percent to 5.03 percent over that period. For the 15,000 families in that group, average income now stands at $27 million.

In world rankings of income inequality, the United States now falls among some of the world’s less-developed economies.

Here is the most recent paper I could find from Saez: Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States

The WaPo article focuses on the incomes of non-financial business executives, but I'd focus more on the 18% who were managers at financial firms.