The Housing Shell Game: Prices Up, Ownership Down

Wall Street Owns Obama
by MIKE WHITNEY


Why are housing prices rising when the homeownership rate has dropped to its lowest level in 18 years?

Actually, it’s not as confusing as it sounds. The Fed’s low interest rates have triggered a flurry of homebuying by Private Equity firms and other speculators which has reduced already-tight supply and pushed up prices. Of course, there is a downside to all this speculation, which is that real, “organic” demand from ordinary working people looking for a place to live, has dropped off sharply. That’s why the homeownership rate is in the dumps. It’s also why existing homes sales declined 0.6 percent in March and “the volume of purchase applications is at levels last seen in 1998″, because as prices edge higher, more people are opting to rent rather than own. Who can blame them?

Five Star Institute economist Mark Lieberman’s has done considerable research on the homeownership rate by combing through the US Census Bureau report. He found that:

“The number of housing units held off the market in the first quarter though was 7,609,000 up from 7,299,000 in the fourth quarter and but down from 7,633,000 a year ago.” (“Homeownership Rate Drops to 18-Year Low” DS News)

Can you believe it? So the banks are keeping more than 7 million homes off the market to reduce listings, create the illusion of ”scarcity”, and push up prices. And just look at the numbers. They haven’t budged in the last year, which means that things aren’t really getting better at all. It’s a complete hoax, in fact, it might be the biggest charade of all time.

That’s why I still think the housing rebound is fake and that eventually prices will return to earth. Ultimately, a sustainable housing recovery depends on 3 things: Solid wage growth, low unemployment, and easy access to credit. Presently, all three of these are weak, which means the current surge in prices won’t last.

Surprisingly, Fitch Ratings Agency agrees with me, or so it would seem judging by a recent article in DS News titled “Fitch: Recent Price Gains May Not Be Here to Stay.” Here’s a clip:

“While some might be rejoicing at the recent rising home prices and rising home sales seen across the nation, Fitch Ratings “still views these gains cautiously.” In fact, the agency predicts price gains will slow and perhaps even reverse over the next year. …

“While rising prices and sales volumes suggest a recovery, they are not moving in sync with key economic indicators that would otherwise support a sustainable price level”…

Persistent low interest rates, little new construction, and formerly-reluctant buyers are bringing action to the market, but Fitch warns this burst in demand will not last.” (“Fitch: Recent Price Gains May Not Be Here to Stay“, DS News)

And Fitch isn’t the only naysayer, Yale professor Robert Shiller is skeptical, too. Shiller maintains that “we might not see a really major turnaround in our lifetimes”. Shiller’s reaction may surprise many readers since his own Case-Shiller home price index showed (just this week) that prices rose a stunning 9.3 percent in the last year. That’s hardly reason for pessimism, is it? Even so, just hours after the report was released, Shiller appeared on the Daily Ticker where he said he thought that, “Home prices will remain relatively stagnant for the next 10 years”. Here’s more from the same interview:

“Shiller says the housing market is operating in an “abnormal economy” where the Federal Reserve is buying $40 billion worth of mortgage securities and $45 billion worth of Treasury notes each month. This has driven mortgage rates to record lows.
…
The Fed will eventually stop buying these securities, says Shiller, and mortgage rates will rise…

When asked where this all leaves the housing market 10 years from now, Shiller says home prices will be “about where they are now” after adjusting for inflation.” (See the whole interview here: “Home Prices Will Remain Relatively Stagnant For Next 10 Years“, Daily Ticker)

So, yes, the vast majority of analysts and experts say the housing recovery is real, but there are still a few contrarians, and their reasoning is sound. The fundamentals are weak, and they could get weaker still as the budget cuts take hold and the economy shifts into low-gear.

For the last year or so, prices have been driven by low rates, inventory suppression, and a surge in investment. In the hotter markets, investors have accounted for more than 30 percent of all sales. But that won’t continue through 2013, mainly because yield-seeking speculators are not making the money they figured they would buying up bank-owned properties (REOs) and renting them out. As analysts at Goldman Sachs recently pointed out:

“Rental yields on single-family homes, conditional on the current market prices, are compressed. Even among the 10 metro areas where our estimated 2013 rental yields are the highest, the average rental yield is only 5%.”

So, even the best deals are only netting 5 percent. That’s not enough to wet the beak of the big players who thought they’d be raking in the moolah. Now that the price of distressed properties has skyrocketed, the Wall street guys are going to make even less, which means they’ll probably reduce their spending on housing and move on to more lucrative areas of investment. It might not happen tomorrow, but–as prices go up and profit margins narrow–it will happen. And that will leave the banks in the same situation they find themselves today, with millions of distressed homes in the pipeline and a dwindling pool of buyers.

Now take a look at this blurb from Moody’s Ratings agency that conflicts with the Census Bureau report, but sheds a little light on what’s going on behind the scenes:

“Nationally, the market holds about 3 million homes in serious delinquency or foreclosure—which is about 3 times the normal level, according to Moody’s.
…..
Almost 40 percent of delinquent loans have been delinquent for three or more years, which translates to much greater losses than on loans in delinquency for shorter time periods.” (“Moody’s: Home Prices to Increase, Loss Severities to Remain High“, DS News)

See? It’s all a big shell game. Nearly half of ”the delinquent loans have been delinquent for three or more years”, and yet, the banks haven’t foreclosed. Why is that? It’s because they want to suppress inventory to prop up prices.

On top of that, the banks have enlisted Obama to provide them with a stealth bailout via home modification programs to keep underwater homeowners out of foreclosure until the banks are ready to take action. Take a look at this eye-popper from DS News:

“Starting July 1, large numbers of non-paying borrowers will have the opportunity to modify existing mortgages through a more streamlined process….

According to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will offer “a new, simplified loan modification initiative” to borrowers who are at least 90 days late with their mortgage payments. Modifications can include a lower rate, a loan term stretched to 40 years and principal forbearance in some cases.

“The loan,” says FHFA, “must be owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Homeowners must be 90 days to 24 months delinquent, and have a first-lien mortgage that is at least 12 months old….

FHFA says the “key difference is that borrowers will not be required to document their hardship or financial situation, but will be able to accept a Streamlined Modification Offer by simply making the trial period payments and agreeing to the terms of the modification…. the bottom line is that documentation is no longer required.” (“DeMarco Disappoints with New Streamlined Mod Program”, DS News)

Doesn’t this prove that Wall Street “owns” Obama? Just think about it: ”No doc” refis for underwater borrowers who have not made a mortgage payment for 2 years? And President Dumbass wants the US gov to guarantee these loans? Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous in your life?

This is why housing prices are going up, because corrupt, carpetbagging public officials and their price-fixing allies at the Fed have moved heaven and earth to do the banks’ bidding and to make sure they don’t lose one red cent on their garbage stockpile of distressed homes.

The whole system is a joke.

The Fed, Apple, and Trickle-Down Economics: A Story for May Day

by robert reich


The Fed’s policy of keeping interest rates near zero is another form of trickle-down economics.

For evidence, look no further than Apple’s decision to borrow a whopping $17 billion and turn it over to its investors in the form of dividends and stock buy-backs.

Apple is already sitting on $145 billion. But with interest rates so low, it’s cheaper to borrow. This also lets Apple avoid U.S. taxes on its cash horde socked away overseas where taxes are lower.

Other big companies are doing much the same on a smaller scale.

Who gains from all this? The richest 10 percent of Americans who own 90 percent of all shares of stock.

But little or nothing is trickling down. The average American can’t borrow at nearly the low rates Apple or any other big company can. Most Americans no longer have a credit rating that allows them to borrow much of anything.

It would be one thing if Apple and other giant companies were borrowing in order to expand operations and create new jobs. But that’s not what’s going on. Apple, remember, is still sitting on $145 billion.

The reason big companies aren’t creating more jobs is consumers aren’t buying enough to justify the expansion. And government is cutting back on spending.

Big corporations are borrowing simply in order to push stock prices up and reward their investors.

It’s a sump pump with the Fed on one end buying up bonds to keep interest rates low, and shareholders on the other end raking in the returns.

Get it? Easy money from the Fed can’t get the economy out of first gear when the rest of government is in reverse.

Trickle-down economics is the first cousin of austerity economics. Austerity is nuts when so many millions are out of work. And as we’ve learned before, trickle-down is a fraud. Nothing ever trickles down.

Want to Fix the Economy? Spend More Money

Can't Get No Stimulation
by MIKE WHITNEY


The economy operates on a simple principle: When people spend money, the economy grows. That means the goal of economic policy should be to maintain a level of spending that keeps the economy growing and minimizes the unavoidable peaks and valleys of the business cycle. This can’t be done without government intervention, mainly because free market capitalism tends to be too erratic (spending can fall sharply) and crisis prone. (See: Lehman Brothers 2008). Dramatic fluctuations in the markets, typically result in anemic business investment which leads to higher unemployment, slower growth and weaker demand. This problem was largely solved by British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes understood that when private sector spending dropped off, public sector (government) spending had to increase or output would shrink, unemployment would rise, and the economy would begin to sputter.

Interestingly, all of the main players who are currently setting policy in the Obama administration and at the Federal Reserve have some understanding of Keynes’ theories and how they can be used to put the economy back on track. The fact that Keynes remedies have been rejected in favor of unconventional and ineffective theories like QE (Quantitative Easing), suggests that the supporters of these policies are less interested in reviving the economy and putting people back to work, then they are with rewarding powerful constituents. 5 years of experimentation, has resulted in chronic high unemployment, droopy consumer confidence, negative wage growth, sky-high foreclosures and personal bankruptcies, record food stamp usage, and a sharp increase in extreme poverty. At the same time, the 3 main stock indicies have more than doubled in value while financial institutions and corporations are raking in record profits. There’s no doubt that QE has served the interests of the few while hurting the interests of the many.

The reason Keynes theories experienced a “comeback” in 2009 is not hard to grasp. Congress and the White House were afraid that the financial system was about to collapse. That’s why Obama’s team of economics advisors–led by Lawrence Summers–pushed through the $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), because, when the chips were down, economists turned to the tried-and-true remedies of John Maynard Keynes. And they worked, too, the only drawback was that the amount of the stimulus was too small to produce the recovery that had been promised. (For the latest on the effectiveness of the stimulus, see: “Joe Scarborough’s Attack on Stimulus“, Dean Baker, CEPR)

Critics of Obama’s fiscal stimulus say that “It didn’t work”, but the claim is ridiculous. How could it not work? Stimulus is not some magic elixir that works on one subject and not on another. It’s spending. Spending is activity, spending is growth, spending is demand, spending is hiring, spending is stimulus. Spending is everything. When the government spends money, it has the same effect as when a consumer spends money or a business spends money. Therefore, the stimulus worked.

The economy is not a sentient being. The economy doesn’t care if private citizens do the spending or the government does the spending. It doesn’t care if the money comes from personal bank accounts or budget deficits. The economy doesn’t care if the money is spent on cancer research or pet rocks. It doesn’t matter, because all spending increases activity, strengthens demand, and leads to more hiring. Saving has the opposite effect. While saving may be the necessary and sensible choice for an individual, it’s poison for the economy. When people save, the velocity of money decreases, demand weakens and growth slows. This whole question of saving vs spending is basic to Keynes’ view of how the economy works. Here’s an example which helps to explain:

“Let’s imagine there are only two people in the world, you and your friend…..You make $100 a week by selling milk to your friend at $1 a bottle, and he makes $100 a week because you buy chocolate from him at $1 a bar. The entire income in this economy (its Gross Domestic Product or GDP) is $200, which corresponds to 100 bottles of milk and 100 bars of chocolate.

One day you make a decision to save $20 out of your $100 and hold it in cash. Consequently, my income falls to $80, and the sum income in the economy is now $180, and the economy produces 20 chocolate bars less than before. In the subsequent week, I only have $80 to spend, hence your takings also fall to $80, and you buy a smaller amount of my milk.

In the end, you and your friend’s incomes are smaller and you are producing and consuming less than is potentially possible. Your economy has fallen into recession.

So now we have a recession but how do we get out of it? Well the neoclassical free market thinking is that you simply do nothing and the forex market will correct itself. In our example you will reduce the price of milk until you are selling 100 bottles again. Your friend does the same and he is now selling 100 bars of chocolate again. The recession is over.

However, this doesn’t happen overnight and could take a while, months even years. So Keynes advocates intervention by the state. Say the state printed $20 and bought your unsold produce, then you would be back to a monthly income of $100 and so would your friend because your income is his income. Full production is immediate therefore no recession and no reduction in GDP.” (“The Basics of Keynesian Economics”, etoro.com)

While imperfect, this analogy helps us get a better fix on what’s going on in the economy today. Presently, output is below what it should be by more than $1 trillion per year, thus, unemployment is high and growth is weak. At the same time, personal savings have risen from near-zero in 2007 to almost 4 percent today. The increase in savings has decreased spending which, in turn, has reduced activity and demand. According to Keynes, the state should step in and boost its spending to employ more of the economy’s resources and put more people back to work. Then, as the recovery gains momentum, the state can reduce its contribution and trim the deficits.

The GOP deficit hawks in Congress want to do the exact opposite. They want to want to reduce the deficits by cutting public spending on popular social programs like Medicare and Social Security. This is a mistake that will only deepen the crisis and pave the way for another slump. It is fairly easy to see what’s wrong with this view by looking at last week’s Commerce Department report on GDP. On Thursday, the Commerce Department reported that 4th Quarter growth (2012) had slipped into negative territory due to a sharp reduction in business inventories and defense spending. This sent off alarms across the country. Was the report a “one off” or is the economy really headed back into recession? That’s what everyone wants to know. (A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth)

Now many people think that less money going to fatcat defense contractors is a good thing, and I agree. But as we said earlier, the economy doesn’t make value judgements like that. Spending is spending, and when government spending falls (as it did), the economy edges closer to recession. Now apply this same rule to the recommendations of the GOP deficit hawks. The hawks say they want “fiscal responsibility”, but what they’re opting for is another slump because the trillion dollar deficits (which represent $1 trillion of additional government spending) are the only thing keeping the economy from sliding back into recession. (See the breakdown of GDP report here).

So how do we reduce the deficits without pushing the economy back into recession?

Increase personal consumption? That seems like the logical choice, after all, if consumers go on another spending spree, then businesses will hire more workers, the economy will grow, federal revenues will balloon, and the deficits will vanish automatically. Problem solved, right?

The only thing is that–according to the data—personal consumption is just about back to normal now. That suggests that the problem isn’t consumption, the problem is that people are not spending as much as they did during the bubble years when residential construction was at its peak and homeowners were feeling flush due to rising housing prices. That hyper-spending was a result of fictitious equity, lax lending standards, low interest rates and massive fraud. The goal of policy should not be to create those same conditions again, (and increase the probability of another meltdown!) but to look for solutions elsewhere.

So, where do we look if not to more personal consumption? Business investment?

It’s unreasonable to expect businesses to make more products when demand is weak. They’d rather issue bigger dividends or buyback more of their own stock (which they have been doing) instead of building more widgets that will just sit on warehouse shelves.

So if neither consumers nor businesses can fill the gap (and reduce the deficits), then what about the government? In the short-term, that’s the best choice, especially since money is so cheap. Presently, the gov can borrow money at historic low rates–(10-year US Treasuries are currently below 2%). The administration should take advantage of these low rates and deploy more stimulus to kickstart the economy. As the economy gets back to full-steam, the deficits will shrink on their own and policymakers can work on a plan for long-term debt reduction.

So what should Obama be doing?

The Obama administration should launch an aggressive government-funded jobs program aimed at lowering unemployment by rebuilding the nation’s dilapidated infrastructure. The commitment of trillions of dollars in fiscal stimulus to the stated project would push the dollar lower which would reduce the trade deficit (US exports would become more competitive) while increasing domestic national savings. Full employment would put more money in the hands of people who would spent it quickly which would increase activity, demand and growth.

So the way to fix the economy is to use government resources to put people back to work. As Keynes opined in his masterpiece “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”: “I am now somewhat sceptical of the success of a merely monetary policy directed towards influencing the rate of interest. I expect to see the State… taking an ever greater responsibility for directly organising investment; since it seems likely that the fluctuations in the market estimation of the marginal efficiency of different types of capital…. will be too great to be offset by any practicable changes in the rate of interest.”

In other words, interest rates and monetary policy alone, won’t get the job done. (Isn’t that obvious after 5 years of zero interest rate policy, ZIRP, and QE??) The government has to take the lead in directing investment to produce a strong and sustainable recovery. That’s what Obama should be doing.

Take Your Hands Off Social Security

It's Irrelevant to the Deficit
by DEAN BAKER


Millions of people are rightly outraged to hear that Social Security is in the gun-sights of both Speaker Boehner and President Obama in their budget negotiations. There is no reason that our political leaders should be discussing cuts to the country’s most successful social program.

While the promotion of budget hysteria is one of the largest industries in Washington, the most important and widely ignored fact about the budget situation is that we have large deficits today because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy. This is not a debatable point.

The budget deficit was just 1.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2007. Before the collapse of the housing bubble the deficit was projected to remain low for the next decade and the debt-to-GDP ratio was actually falling. This would have been the case even if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to continue.

When the bubble burst and the economy plummeted, tax collections fell. We also spent more on unemployment insurance and other benefits for unemployed workers. And we had further tax cuts and stimulus spending to try to boost the economy. The automatic and deliberate steps taken to counter the downturn fully explain the large deficits we have seen the last five years.

Record low interest rates on government bonds demonstrate that the current deficits are not a real problem. But even if they were, it is difficult to see how cutting Social Security could to be part of the solution. Under the law Social Security is not supposed to be part of the budget. It is an entirely separate program financed on its own.

This is not just a rhetorical point. We can talk about Social Security facing a financing shortfall in the future precisely because it is solely financed by its own revenue stream. One of the most widely discussed proposals to avert that shortfall is a revision in the cost-of-living calculation that would be the equivalent of a 3 percent cut in benefits over a typical retiree’s lifetime. (Perversely, the impact will be largest for the oldest and poorest retirees, since people who live the longest will accumulate the largest reduction in benefits.)

An overwhelming majority of the country strongly supports Social Security and does not want to see any benefit cuts. But because of the nature of this budget negotiation process, Americans are supposed to accept the cuts with no revenue increase whatsoever to shore up the program’s long-term financial position.

It is understandable that people who want to cut back or dismantle Social Security would argue for this position. It is difficult to see why anyone else would.

Why the Fed’s Jobs Program Will Fail

Robert Reich - Thursday, December 13, 2012


For the first time, the Federal Reserve has explicitly linked interest rates to unemployment.

Rates will remain near zero “at least as long” as unemployment remains above 6.5 percent and if inflation is projected to be no more than 2.5 percent, said the Federal Open Market Committee in a statement Wednesday.

Put to one side the question now obsessing stock and bond traders — whether the new standard means higher interest rates will kick in sooner than the middle of 2015, which had been the Fed’s previous position.

By linking interest rates directly to the rate of unemployment, Bernanke is explicitly acknowledging that the Federal Reserve Board has two mandates — not just price but also employment. “The conditions now prevailing in the job market represent an enormous waste of human and economic potential,” said Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke.

These are refreshing words at a time when Congress and the White House seem more concerned about reducing the federal budget deficit than generating more jobs.

But the sad fact is near-zero interest rates won’t do much for jobs because banks aren’t allowing many people to take advantage of them. If you’ve tried lately to refinance your home or get a home equity loan you know what I mean.

Banks don’t need to lend to homeowners. They can get a higher return on the almost-free money they borrow from the Fed by betting on derivatives in the vast casino called the global capital market.

Besides, they’ve still got a lot of junk mortgage loans on their books and don’t want to risk adding more.

Low interest rates also lower the cost of capital, which in theory should encourage companies to borrow for expansion and more hiring. But companies won’t expand or hire until they have more customers. And they won’t have more customers as long as most people don’t have additional money to spend.

And here we come to the crux of the problem. Consumers don’t have additional money. The median wage keeps dropping, adjusted for inflation. Most of the new jobs in the economy pay less than the jobs they replaced.

Corporate profits are taking a higher share of the total economy than they have since World War II, but wages are taking the smallest share since then (see graph).

PROFITS

(Business Insider, St. Louis Federal Reserve Board)

WAGES

(Business Insider, St. Louis Federal Reserve Board)

Globalization and technological changes continue to eat away at the American middle class. Yet we’ve done nothing to stop the erosion.

To the contrary, as in Michigan, we continue to undercut labor unions — which for three decades after World War II had been the principal bargaining agents for the working middle class.

Moreover, instead of creating easy paths for people to gain the skills they need for higher wages, we’re doing the opposite. We’re firing teachers and squeezing 30 kids into K-12 classrooms, defunding job training programs and reducing support for public higher education.

Instead of encouraging profit-sharing, we’re facilitating the Walmartization of America — the lowest possible wages along with the fattest possible corporate profits. (Walmart, which directly employs almost one percent of the entire workforce at near-poverty wages, made $27 billion in operating profits last year.)

Republicans want to make corporations and the wealthy even richer — demanding tax cuts and roll-backs of regulations on the pretense that companies and the wealthy are the “job creators.”

But the real job creators are America’s middle class and all those aspiring to join it, whose purchases propel the economy forward. And whose declining earnings are holding the economy back.

So two cheers for Ben Bernanke and the Fed. They’re doing what they can. The failure is in the rest of the government — at both the federal and state levels — still dominated by deficit hawks, supply-siders, and witting and unwitting lackeys of big corporations and the wealthy.