by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2012 12:15:00 PM

Another Update: Case-Shiller, CoreLogic and others report nominal house prices. It is also useful to look at house prices in real terms (adjusted for inflation) and as a price-to-rent ratio.

Below are three graphs showing nominal prices (as reported), real prices and a price-to-rent ratio. Real prices, and the price-to-rent ratio, are back to late 1998 and early 2000 levels depending on the index.

Nominal House Prices

Click on graph for larger image.

The first graph shows the quarterly Case-Shiller National Index SA (through Q4 2011), and the monthly Case-Shiller Composite 20 SA and CoreLogic House Price Indexes (through January) in nominal terms as reported.

In nominal terms, the Case-Shiller National index (SA) is back to Q3 2002 levels, the Case-Shiller Composite 20 Index (SA) is back to January 2003 levels, and the CoreLogic index is back to February 2003.

Real House Prices

The second graph shows the same three indexes in real terms (adjusted for inflation using CPI less Shelter). Note: some people use other inflation measures to adjust for real prices.

In real terms, the National index is back to Q4 1998 levels, the Composite 20 index is back to February 2000, and the CoreLogic index back to August 1999.

In real terms, all appreciation in the '00s - and more - is gone.

Price-to-Rent

In October 2004, Fed economist John Krainer and researcher Chishen Wei wrote a Fed letter on price to rent ratios: House Prices and Fundamental Value. Kainer and Wei presented a price-to-rent ratio using the OFHEO house price index and the Owners' Equivalent Rent (OER) from the BLS.

Here is a similar graph using the Case-Shiller National, Composite 20 and CoreLogic House Price Indexes.

This graph shows the price to rent ratio (January 1998 = 1.0).

On a price-to-rent basis, the Case-Shiller National index is back to October 1998 levels, the Composite 20 index is back to February 2000 levels, and the CoreLogic index is back to August 1999.

In real terms - and as a price-to-rent ratio - prices are mostly back to late 1990s or early 2000 levels, and will all probably be back to late '90s levels within the next few months.

All current house price graphs
Earlier:
• Case Shiller: House Prices fall to new post-bubble lows in January

by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2012 10:27:00 AM

• From Lennar:

"New sales orders in the first quarter were encouraging. We have seen the market stabilize, driven by a combination of low home prices and low interest rates, making the decision to purchase a new home more attractive, compared to the heated rental market. We recorded our strongest first quarter sales since 2008, with new orders increasing 33% year-over-year. We have been able to increase sales prices and have started to reduce sales incentives in some of our communities. We have also seen a noticeable improvement in our sales pace per community, which should lead to a significant increase in the operating leverage of our homebuilding segment in the second half of the year." [said Stuart Miller, Chief Executive Officer of Lennar Corporation]

• From the Richmond Fed: Manufacturing Growth Moderates In March; Expectations Remain Positive

In March, the seasonally adjusted composite index of manufacturing activity — our broadest measure of manufacturing — declined thirteen points to 7 from February's reading of 20. Among the index's components, shipments lost twenty-three points to 2, new orders dropped ten points to finish at 11, and the jobs index moved down seven points to end at 6.

This suggests slower growth in March.

• From MarketWatch: March consumer-confidence gauge declines to 70.2

A gauge of U.S. consumer confidence declined in March due to lower employment expectations, while views on the present situation rose to the highest level since 2008, the Conference Board reported Tuesday. The consumer-confidence gauge fell to 70.2 in March from a February reading of 71.6.

by Calculated Risk on 3/27/2012 09:00:00 AM

S&P/Case-Shiller released the monthly Home Price Indices for January (a 3 month average of November, December and January).

This release includes prices for 20 individual cities, and two composite indices (for 10 cities and 20 cities).

Note: Case-Shiller reports NSA, I use the SA data.

From S&P:
2012 Home Prices Off to a Rocky Start According to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indice

Data through January 2012, released today by S&P Indices for its S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices ... showed annual declines of 3.9% and 3.8% for the 10- and 20-City Composites, respectively. Both composites saw price declines of 0.8% in the month of January. Sixteen of 19 MSAs also saw home prices decrease over the month; only Miami, Phoenix and Washington DC home prices went up versus December 2011. (Due to delays in data reporting, the January 2012 index values for Charlotte are not included in this month’s release).

“Despite some positive economic signs, home prices continued to drop. The 10- and 20- City Composites and eight cities – Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Las Vegas, New York, Portland, Seattle and Tampa – made new lows,” says David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Indices. “Detroit and Phoenix, two cities that have suffered massive price declines, plus Denver, saw increasing prices versus January 2011. The 10-City Composite was down 3.9% and the 20-City was down 3.8% compared to January 2011.

Click on graph for larger image.

The first graph shows the nominal seasonally adjusted Composite 10 and Composite 20 indices (the Composite 20 was started in January 2000).

The Composite 10 index is off 34.2% from the peak, and down 0.1% in January (SA). The Composite 10 is at a new post bubble low (both Seasonally adjusted and Not Seasonally Adjusted).

The Composite 20 index is off 33.9% from the peak, and unchanged in January (SA) from December. The Composite 20 is also at a new post-bubble low.

The second graph shows the Year over year change in both indices.

The Composite 10 SA is down 3.8% compared to January 2011.

The Composite 20 SA is down 3.8% compared to January 2011. This was a slightly smaller year-over-year decline for both indexes than in December.

The third graph shows the price declines from the peak for each city included in S&P/Case-Shiller indices.

Prices increased (SA) in 9 of the 20 Case-Shiller cities in January seasonally adjusted (only 3 cities increased NSA). Prices in Las Vegas are off 61.8% from the peak, and prices in Dallas only off 8.6% from the peak. There was no data for Charlotte in January.

Both the SA and NSA are at new post-bubble lows - and the NSA indexes will continue to decline for the next couple of months (this report was for the three months ending in January). I'll have more on prices later.

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2012 10:33:00 PM

All data is lagged, but some data is lagged more than others.

In times of economic stress, I tend to watch the high frequency data closely: initial weekly unemployment claims, monthly manufacturing surveys, and consumer sentiment. The “high frequency” data is lagged, but the lag is usually just a week or two.

Most of the time I focus on the monthly employment report, GDP, housing starts, new home sales and retail sales. The lag for most of this data is several weeks. As an example, the BLS reference period contains the 12th of the month, so the report is lagged a few weeks by the time it is released. The housing starts and new home sales data released last week were for February, so the lag is also a few weeks after the end of the month. The advance estimate of quarterly GDP is released several weeks after the end of the quarter.

But sometimes the lag can be much longer. Tomorrow morning the January Case-Shiller house price index will be released. This is actually a three month average for house sales recorded in November, December and January. (Update: April 24: S&P obtains the data when recorded, but uses closing dates, not recording dates for the price index).

But remember that the purchase agreement for a house that closed in November was probably signed in September or early October. So some portion of the Case-Shiller index will be for contract prices 6 or even 7 months ago!

Other house price indexes do a little better. CoreLogic uses a weighted 3 month average with the most recent month weighted the most – and they will release their February index next week, almost a month ahead of Case-Shiller. The LPS house price index is for just one month (not an average) and uses only closings (not recordings like other indexes that can add an additional lag).

But the key point is that the Case-Shiller index will not catch the inflection point for house prices until well after the event happens. Just something to remember ...

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2012 06:40:00 PM

This was released earlier today.

From the Dallas Fed: Texas Manufacturing Expansion Continues

Texas factory activity continued to increase in March, according to business executives responding to the Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey. The production index, a key measure of state manufacturing conditions, held steady at 11.1, suggesting growth continued at about the same pace as last month.
...
Perceptions of broader economic conditions remained positive in March. The general business activity index was positive for the third month in a row, although it fell from 17.8 to 10.8. Twenty-three percent of firms noted improvement in the level of business activity, while 12 percent noted a worsening. The company outlook index posted a sixth consecutive positive reading, but it also retreated slightly, falling to 9.5 from 15.8 last month.

Labor market indicators reflected higher labor demand. Strong employment growth continued in March, although the index edged down from 25.2 to 21.7. Twenty-nine percent of firms reported hiring new workers, while 7 percent reported layoffs. The hours worked index continued to suggest average workweeks lengthened.

The Dallas Fed asked some special questions on hiring plans too. The survey indicated that more firms expect to hire over the next six months as opposed to the previous special survey in January 2011. The reason given for hiring is "Expected growth of sales or revenue is high". More demand.

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2012 03:57:00 PM

From housing economist Tom Lawler:

Several media stories, including one from NPR/ProPublica, suggest that new analysis by folks at Fannie and Freddie indicate that engaging in some principal reduction modifications may be cost effective to the GSEs.

At least one of these stories, however, made what appears to be a “most erroneous” statement. E.g. a ProPublica reporter, in a follow-up article to the original NPR/ProPublica article on this issue, wrote that the GSE’s analysis suggested that “(s)uch loan forgiveness wouldn’t just help hundreds of thousands of families (stay) in their homes,” but “it would help save Freddie and Fannie money,” which “would help taxpayers…”

That latter statement, however, appears to be incorrect. Other reports, including an interview with Freddie’s CEO, indicate that the GSEs’ analysis finds that principal reductions would be “cost effective” for the GSEs ONLY after factoring in the new, turbo-charged incentives Treasury would pay to the GSEs (and other lenders/investors) for doing a principal reduction under HAMP. Such incentives -- which were recently tripled, and which the administration recently agreed would be paid to the GSEs as well as other HAMP participants (the GSEs didn’t use to get any HAMP incentives) – are obviously paid for by the government/taxpayers.

HousingWire reported on Friday, e.g., that Freddie CEO “Ed” Haldeman said the following at a symposium:

"I have to say recently the Treasury sweetened the program and tremendously increased the incentive payments in their offer to us. We will reevaluate that to see what may be in our economic best interest. If there are very large incentive payments — which could be 50% of what you could write down — it may be in our economic self-interest to participate in that."

So here’s the “taxpayer” scoop: as best as I can tell, the GSEs’ analysis (which, to be fair, some have questioned) suggests that principal reductions would NOT make sense for them (or, implicitly, for taxpayers) without any Treasury/taxpayer incentive payments. However, IF the GSEs receive hefty incentive payments from Treasury/taxpayers to engage in principal reductions, then in some cases doing so WOULD make sense to the GSEs – but NOT to taxpayers!

CR Note: Hopefully the analysis will be released!

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2012 01:22:00 PM

I still think QE3 is likely around mid-year. Fed Chairman Bernanke's comments this morning that the "job market remains far from normal", and that he views the high unemployment rate as cyclical, not structural (I think this is obvious), suggests the Fed remains ready to take more action.

The next two meetings of the FOMC (April 24th and 25th, and June 19th and 20th) are both two day meetings. Although the Fed remains data dependent, I think they might hint at further action in April, and possibly announce QE3 in June.

From Kristina Peterson and Jon Hilsenrath at the WSJ: Bernanke Notes Labor Market Concerns

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said low interest-rate policies were needed to confront deep, continuing problems in the labor market.

The comments run counter to a view that has emerged in financial markets recently that the Fed is preparing to back away from its low-interest-rate policies. ... Mr. Bernanke's comments indicate that his own views about policy haven't shifted as much as the markets have in recent weeks.
...
Mr. Bernanke avoided trying an answer another question: Whether the Fed will launch another bond-buying program, known to many as "quantitative easing," to push long-term interest rates even lower. The Fed has clearly left the door open to another program, but hasn't made any decisions on whether or how to proceed on that front. Mr. Bernanke's comments Monday suggested another round of bond buying is still on the table if the economy slows or unemployment starts rising again, but it's not a sure thing.

Goldman Sachs economists wrote in early March:

We expect that the Fed will ultimately announce a return to balance sheet expansion sometime in the first half of 2012, likely including purchases of mortgagebacked securities (MBS).

At the same time, Merrill Lynch noted:

In our view, it is wishful thinking to believe the Fed will do QE when the data flow is healthy. We expect renewed QE only after Operation Twist ends in June ... only if the economy is slowing ... Under our growth forecast ... QE3 comes in September.

If the economy slows, and key inflation measures start falling again - then QE3 remains likely. But right now, with most data somewhat better than expected, and inflation a little higher than the Fed's target, the Fed is still in "wait and see" mode.

If we look at the most recent projections, the unemployment rate has fallen a little faster than expected, GDP has been a little stronger, and inflation is a little higher. My guess is the decline in the unemployment rate will slow, and inflation will ease - so I think QE3 remains likely around mid-year.

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2012 10:00:00 AM

From the NAR: Pending Home Sales Ease in February but Solidly Higher Than a Year Ago

The Pending Home Sales Index, a forward-looking indicator based on contract signings, eased 0.5 percent to 96.5 in February from 97.0 in January but is 9.2 percent above February 2011 when it was 88.4. The data reflects contracts but not closings.
...
The PHSI in the Northeast slipped 0.6 percent to 77.7 in February but is 18.4 percent above a year ago. In the Midwest the index jumped 6.5 percent to 93.8 and is 19.0 percent higher than February 2011. Pending home sales in the South fell 3.0 percent to an index of 105.8 in February but are 7.8 percent above a year ago. In the West the index declined 2.6 percent in February to 99.3 and is 1.8 percent below February 2011.

This was below the consensus of a 1.0% increase for this index.

Contract signings usually lead sales by about 45 to 60 days, so this is for sales in March and April.

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2012 08:57:00 AM

The Chicago Fed released the national activity index (a composite index of other indicators): Index shows economic growth near average in February

Led by weaker production-related indicators, the Chicago Fed National Activity Index decreased to –0.09 in February from +0.33 in January. ...

The index’s three-month moving average, CFNAI-MA3, increased from +0.22 in January to +0.30 in February—its highest level since May 2010. February’s CFNAI-MA3 suggests that growth in national economic activity was above its historical trend. The economic growth reflected in this level of the CFNAI-MA3 suggests limited inflationary pressure from economic activity over the coming year.

This graph shows the Chicago Fed National Activity Index (three month moving average) since 1967.

Click on graph for larger image.

This suggests growth near trend in February - still not strong growth.

According to the Chicago Fed:

A zero value for the index indicates that the national economy is expanding at its historical trend rate of growth; negative values indicate below-average growth; and positive values indicate above-average growth.

by Calculated Risk on 3/26/2012 08:11:00 AM

From Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: Recent Developments in the Labor Market

We have seen some positive signs on the jobs front recently, including a pickup in monthly payroll gains and a notable decline in the unemployment rate. That is good news. At the same time, some key questions are unresolved. For example, the better jobs numbers seem somewhat out of sync with the overall pace of economic expansion. What explains this apparent discrepancy and what implications does it have for the future course of the labor market and the economy?
...
A wide range of indicators suggests that the job market has been improving, which is a welcome development indeed. Still, conditions remain far from normal, as shown, for example, by the high level of long-term unemployment and the fact that jobs and hours worked remain well below pre-crisis peaks, even without adjusting for growth in the labor force. Moreover, we cannot yet be sure that the recent pace of improvement in the labor market will be sustained. Notably, an examination of recent deviations from Okun's law suggests that the recent decline in the unemployment rate may reflect, at least in part, a reversal of the unusually large layoffs that occurred during late 2008 and over 2009. To the extent that this reversal has been completed, further significant improvements in the unemployment rate will likely require a more-rapid expansion of production and demand from consumers and businesses, a process that can be supported by continued accommodative policies.

I also discussed long-term unemployment today, arguing that cyclical rather than structural factors are likely the primary source of its substantial increase during the recession. If this assessment is correct, then accommodative policies to support the economic recovery will help address this problem as well. We must watch long-term unemployment especially carefully, however. Even if the primary cause of high long-term unemployment is insufficient aggregate demand, if progress in reducing unemployment is too slow, the long-term unemployed will see their skills and labor force attachment atrophy further, possibly converting a cyclical problem into a structural one.

If this hypothesis is wrong and structural factors are in fact explaining much of the increase in long-term unemployment, then the scope for countercyclical policies to address this problem will be more limited. Even if that proves to be the case, however, we should not conclude that nothing can be done. If structural factors are the predominant explanation for the increase in long-term unemployment, it will become even more important to take the steps needed to ensure that workers are able to obtain the skills needed to meet the demands of our rapidly changing economy.