Posted by nithi.vivatrat on December 4, 2009
Economists and other talking heads were almost giddy today about November’s unexpected dip in the unemployment rate to 10%. It was not unusual to see quotes like these being tossed around:
- WSJ: “…a sign the labor market is finally healing as the economy recovers…”
- Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo/Mistubishi UFJ in New York, quoted by CNBC: “We’re almost back to normal… The economy is lifting at a much greater rate than expected.”
- Tom Sowanick, chief investment officer at the OmniVest Group in Princeton, New Jersey, also quoted by CNBC: “These numbers are almost too good to be true.”
I think it is. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by nithi.vivatrat on August 26, 2009
As has been broadly reported, the S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. national home price index rose nearly 3% in the second quarter compared with the first three months of this year. In the Washington region, prices of previously owned single-family homes rose 2.85% in June over the previous month, the second gain in a row after a 1.3% increase in May.
I wrote previously that we’re still facing further unemployment and foreclosure activity, as well as the end of the first-time buyer tax credit; all of these factors have the potential to take away the gains we are seeing. Specifically to the tax credit issue, Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, stated in the LA Times that the tax credit “probably pulled a lot of purchases forward that might not have happened until 2010 or 2011, and that demand’s not going to be there.”
We’ll need to wait until after the tax credit program expires before we can really get a sense of how prices will trend in the “normal state.”
Posted by nithi.vivatrat on August 24, 2009
In an opinion piece in yesterday’s Financial Times, NYU economics professor Nouriel Roubini took issue with the mainstream speculation of an imminent economic recovery, arguing that the recovery will be “U-shaped, anaemic and below trend for at least a couple of years, after a couple of quarters of rapid growth driven by the restocking of inventories and a recovery of production from near Depression levels.” He goes on to list seven systemic economic conditions dragging out a recovery.
Further, Roubini contends that, in fact, we could be facing a W-shaped, double-dip recession, caused by the Catch-22 of ending government bailout/stimulus programs (undermine recovery if they end, drive inflation risk and then interest rates if they don’t) as well as speculation on commodities.
Well-articulated, sobering analysis — must read for anyone seriously interested in planning for what’s ahead.
Posted by nithi.vivatrat on August 21, 2009
Bloomberg reported this morning that July sales of existing homes exceeded the forecast to reach the highest level it has been in almost two years.
The Bloomberg News survey of 64 economists had a July median forecast of a 5 million annual rate. The actual sales in July, according to the National Association of Realtors, exceeded this forecast with a 5.24 million annual rate.
Of course, the number of transactions tends to increase as prices fall: the median price of existing homes fell 15%, from $210,100 in July 2008 to $178,400 in July 2009. There is no new concrete evidence of price stabilization, as the supply of previously-owned unsold homes, measured in months, remained unchanged from June at 9.4 months. To this point, I wrote in previous posts about the possible existence of “shadow inventory,” homes whose owners are waiting for signs of economic improvement before putting on the market, which would continue to keep inventory high (and prices depressed).
Other factors to keep in mind: the elevated level of foreclosure activity will likely persist for some time, which will continue to depress prices. In addition, the $8000 first-time homebuyer federal tax credit will not be available for transactions occurring after December 1; first-time homebuyers accounted for 30% of July sales, so the end of the program could also have a negative impact on home sale activity.
Some good news today, but I’m taking it with a grain of salt, given these other long-term factors.
Posted by nithi.vivatrat on August 6, 2009
Amidst the signs being cited as proof of a recovering economy, other data still shows a rough road ahead. Yesterday, CalculatedRisk highlighted two such reports from Deutsche Bank (reported by Bloomberg) and the Wall Street Journal. The Bloomberg report indicates that:
The percentage of properties “underwater” is forecast to rise to 48 percent, or 25 million homes, as property prices drop through the first quarter of 2011, according to [Deutsche Bank] analysts Karen Weaver and Ying Shen.
According to Bloomberg, Deutsche Bank also believes that a large segment of the newly underwater homeowners will be prime borrowers (conforming and jumbo), not subprime or option ARM borrowers as has been the general case thus far.
WSJ reports an increase in the number of homeowners upside-down on their mortgages:
Some 24% of owner-occupied homes had mortgage debt that exceeded the values of those homes at the end of June, according to data from Equifax and Moody’s Economy.com. That number rises to 32% when looking at the share of homeowners with mortgages that don’t have equity left in their homes.
Overall, 16 million homeowners are “upside-down” on their mortgages, up from 10 million, or 15% of owner-occupied homes, one year ago.
Rough times ahead for a lot of homeowners, despite any improvement in the economy.
Posted by nithi.vivatrat on June 25, 2009
I’ve always felt that a balloon was a better analogy than a bubble (in no way am I claiming to be the first) to describe an economic contraction in a particular sector or area, such as housing or consumer spending. It’s not that the market in question “pops” and disappears — it just deflates to a different size after the “air” get sucked out.
The lost “air” in our economy was inflated consumer spending fueled by borrowing — borrowing largely leveraged against rising housing prices. Thus, as housing prices have fallen, consumer spending has dropped as well — causing this significant contraction of our economy. If you don’t believe me, see today’s post by Atif Mian and Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business in WSJ Real Time Economics (thanks to CalculatedRisk for highlighting the post). A key finding:
Using this methodology, we find striking results: from 2002 to 2006, homeowners borrowed $0.25 to $0.30 for every $1 increase in their home equity. Our microeconomic estimates suggest a large macroeconomic impact: withdrawals of home equity by households accounted for 2.3% of GDP each year from 2002 to 2006.
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by nithi.vivatrat on June 11, 2009
CalculatedRisk reports how an economic turnaround NEED NOT be immediately accompanied by increased hiring. This will continue to be a drag on housing prices and transaction velocity. When people don’t have jobs or are still afraid of losing them, they will be less likely to buy a home even when mortgage rates are low. Lenders will also be skittish in a poor job market. In addition, a lack of improvement in the job market will also cause foreclosures to persist as a problem. My opinion: wait for the hiring trend to improve before we see a sustained improvement in housing prices and transaction velocity.
Posted by nithi.vivatrat on April 8, 2009
When it comes to designing compensation programs, my good friend and experienced HR executive repeats this mantra: “compensation drives behavior.” As I talk to people about the incentives created by the traditional commission fee structure in real estate, this refrain often comes to mind. I thought of it again as I read the April 1 Washington Post article “Four Banks Are First to Return U.S. Aid,” discussing that, while returning taxpayer money would typically be viewed as a good thing, in this case it threatens to undermine the goal of increasing lending (so much irony here).
The primary reason these banks are rushing to repay this money?
“Banks seeking permission to repay the Treasury, however, argue that compensation restrictions are the real threat to lending. Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general who oversees the investment program, testified before Congress yesterday that a survey of nearly 400 aid recipients found widespread concern that limits on pay will hamper retention of top employees, putting aid recipients at a competitive disadvantage.”
It should not be surprising that executives at banks receiving TARP money, especially those that were not in bad shape, would prefer not to have constraints on their pay. Indeed, that same day, the House of Representatives approved the Pay for Performance Act of 2009 that prohibits “unreasonable or excessive” compensation or bonus payments that are “not directly based on performance-based measures” (it’s important for the Members to show the appropriate outrage to their constituents).
To recap: we got into this mess partly because certain people were getting highly compensated for making loans they shouldn’t have been making; now that we need lending to increase to stimulate the economy, we’re going to implement curbs on compensation to the executives at the banks that take federal funds intended to spur that lending. Anyone else confused/frustrated/angry?
In conclusion: never underestimate the unintended behaviors and outcomes that compensation methods can create.
Posted by nithi.vivatrat on March 31, 2009
Columbia University’s Edmund Phelps was on American Public Media’s Marketplace last week contending that we rethink our national obsession with home ownership.
I listened to this after having recently read David Kamp’s fascinating piece in April’s Vanity Fair titled “Rethinking the American Dream.”
Both pieces are very thought-provoking. I do think there is something disconcerting about the American Dream somehow becoming synonymous with home ownership (it wasn’t always like that), and I do have concerns about the many aspects of our government policy that encourage this mindset. To me, it is undeniable that the mortgage interest deduction played at least some role in the housing bubble run-up.
While I do believe that home ownership and renting should be theoretically economically equivalent over the long run, there are some intangible attributes to home ownership (pride of ownership and emotional investment to neighborhood development and care among them) that cannot be ignored. Anyway, the spirited back-and-forth in the comment section of the Marketplace piece is as interesting as the Phelps interview itself. Hope you find this interesting as well.
Posted by nithi.vivatrat on March 24, 2009
The Real Estate Matters column in Saturday’s Washington Post identified some of the reasons why this is a great market for first-time home buyers, ranging from the falling home prices, low interest rates, and the tax credit. I would add this reason why I believe the first-timer segment will grow as a proportion of all home buyers: by definition, first-time home buyers will not be saddled by the prospect of selling a current home at a loss, which definitely undermines the impetus to move.
The column got me thinking about why SmithAdams is such a great fit for home buyers, first-time or otherwise. I was talking to a buyer client this morning who summarized it neatly for me:
“If I do my own research and find the house on my own that I want to buy, why should I pay a 3% commission? I just wanted help determining the offering price, preparing and presenting the offer, and negotiating the deal. SmithAdams did just that, and I didn’t have to pay for anything I didn’t need or ask for.”
In this market, there are many opportunities to identify bargains relative to prices over the past few years. Doing so will require you to do some homework and research. SmithAdams can certainly help do this for you. But, if you indeed do that homework yourself, shouldn’t you be rewarded with lower fees? I think so. If you agree, give us a call.
