More Government Aid for Mortgages?

After many failed attempts, the Obama Administration takes another whack at bolstering the nation’s housing market, this time by offering $5 to $10 billion in government aid for underwater homeowners to refinance their mortgages as detailed in this WSJ report.

On the one hand, you have to feel for homeowners who have continued to make their mortgage payments despite the declining value of their home, but can’t refinance at today’s freakishly low rates. But, on the other hand, you have to scratch your head about the government intervening to create new loans for more than theses homes are worth.

Those worrying about the latter shouldn’t be too concerned, however, as not much is likely to happen in Congress during this increasingly heated election year.

Tagged with:  






Not surprisingly, I’m going to have to agree with both Yale Economist Robert Shiller in this Business Insider interview and Barry Ritholtz at his Big Picture blog in arguing that a housing bottom – if it does indeed arrive in 2012 – will prove disappointing for those expecting gains on their real estate investment in 2013 or 2014.

As shown to the right using the mid-1990s Los Angeles housing market as an example of what might happen to national home prices in the years ahead, housing market bottoms are long drawn out affairs.

We happened to be living in Southern California at the time and had the good fortune to buy a house there in 1995, though, we were just looking for a place to live, not thinking of it as an investment.

I remember the price actually declined by another five percent or so in the year after we bought it and it wasn’t until five or six years later that we began to hear about rising home prices, a bit surprised to learn that the value of our place had increased by  $100,000 or more.

But, for the first few years, you were better off not even thinking about home values.

Using the broad Los Angeles price index as an example, even if you had bought at the absolute bottom in February 1996, you’d have had less than a one percent gain a year later.

The index spent a full four years within five percent of the February 1996 low!

Anyone thinking that a housing market bottom in 2012 means that home prices will be higher next year or the year after that will probably be disappointed.

Moreover, given the size of the recent boom and the likelihood of the bust being of similar magnitude, I wouldn’t be surprised if home prices don’t post a substantive advance for the rest of the decade.

Tagged with:  

The Ongoing Housing Boom in Warshington

It’s nothing like Vancouver, but, by U.S. standards, the ongoing housing boom in the nation’s capital is rather impressive, a point made clear in the graphic below from this Washington Post story following the release of the latest Case-Shiller home price data.

Note that the November index values for Detroit, Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Cleveland wouldn’t show  up on the chart above as they have all fallen below the 100 mark, the latter three areas having done so over the last year or so while Detroit made the plunge back in early-2008, now sitting at a stunning 70.66 after falling another 2.4 percent.

Interestingly, after hosting one of the more spectacular bubbles last decade, Miami’s housing market is now within a point of the 20-city index.

Tagged with:  

Case-Shiller: Home Price Declines Accelerate

Standard and Poor’s reported that the November data for the Case-Shiller Home Price Index indicated further declines, the 20-city index falling 1.3 percent for the second straight month as property values declined in 19 of the 20 cities, also for the second month in a row. On a year-over-year basis, the 20-city index is now down 3.7 percent.

On a seasonally adjusted basis, home prices were down only 0.7 percent with three cities seeing gains and David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Indices, was not hopeful when he noted the following:

Despite continued low interest rates and better real GDP growth in the fourth quarter, home prices continue to fall …  The trend is down and there are few, if any, signs in the numbers that a turning point is close at hand.

It looks like policy makers in Washington might want to accelerate plans for the next attempt at rescuing the housing market, that is, before prices fall too much further.

Tagged with:  

What Happened at the FOMC Meeting?

I’m not around at the moment to comment on the results of today’s FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) meeting that concluded a few minutes ago, likely to have resulted in some sort of announcement about the central bank’s communication policy and an enhanced economic/policy forecast, but, when I’m able to catch up on this and Fed Chief Ben Bernanke’s press conference, I’ll try to put something up later in the day.

Based on what I’ve been reading about an extension of the Fed’s freakishly low interest rate guarantee, we’re probably looking at the situation to right.

This is not going to make savers happy, but, if you like to borrow money, you’re likely to get lower rates for a while longer.

Come to think of it, those low-rate credit card offers could be arriving in our mailboxes for the rest of the decade.

Anyway, I’m hoping that someone asks Bernanke about the 2006 FOMC meeting transcripts and how the nation’s brightest economists could have been guffawing all year long when they maybe should have been looking at the rapidly inflating housing bubble that would burst a year or two later.

See The Fed’s Housing Bubble Laughter from the other day for the particulars about this.

How to Save Economics?

Following yesterday’s generally well received diatribe about the shortcomings of  the world’s economists, this Time Magazine commentary was stumbled upon that makes some of the same points, absent what I thought were important references to The Shining.

After the financial crisis of 2008, the Queen of England asked economists, “Why did no one see the credit crunch coming?” Three years later, a group of Harvard under­graduate students walked out of introductory economics and wrote, “Today, we are walking out of your class, ­Economics 101, in order to express our discontent with the bias inherent in this introductory economics course. We are deeply concerned about the way that this bias affects students, the University, and our greater society.”

What has happened? Rebellion from both above and below suggests that economists, who were recently at the core of power and social leadership in our society, are no longer trusted. Not long ago, the principal theories of economics appeared to be the secular religion of society. Today, economics is a discipline in disrepute.

First, economists should resist overstating what they actually know.

Second, economists have to recognize the shortcomings of high-powered mathematical models, which are not substitutes for vigilant observation. Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow saw this danger years ago when he exclaimed, “The math takes on a life of its own because the mathematics pushed toward a tendency to prove theories of mathematical, rather than scientific, interest.”

Financial-market models, for instance, tend to be constructed with building blocks that assume stable and anchored expectations. But the long history of financial crises over the past 200 years belies that notion.

And that is why few economists saw the financial crisis coming – because they had their noses buried in models that failed to properly reflect what was happening in the real world.

I’ll never forget former Fed Chief Alan Greenspan’s remarks before Congress in 2004 or 2005 when he said there was virtually no stress in the banking system when, at the time, the real action was in the now-defunct  “shadow banking” system.

Apparently, Fed economists didn’t see the need to model that.

Page 1 of 6412345102030...Last »
© 2010-2011 The Mess That Greenspan Made