Category: Fed Policy

Don’t Rush It

Don’t Rush It

Policy is at its worst when it is rushed.? Compromises are made under the guise of a crisis that no rational man would take, if given his leisure.? There are other options versus rushing into a bailout:

  • Do “one off” bailouts until the new year.? Then let the new Congress, with fresh authorization from the electorate, attack the problem, rather than a bunch of lame ducks.? (As an aside, the panic engendered by the Bush, Jr. administration over the Iraq war is now serving them badly as they try to rush decisions here.)
  • To the Republicans: no deal is better than a bad deal.
  • To the Democrats: no deal is better than a deal that you will be saddled with if it goes wrong, particularly if you can’t get Congressional Republicans to go along.
  • Another option is doing a new RTC.? Wait for financial institutions to fail, then be the undertaker… selling off the assets in a better credit environment.
  • Yet another option would be offering a tax credit on all mortgage interest paid over 8%.
  • Let the Fed flood the short term money markets with liquidity, sparking inflation that no one can dispute. This will solve the crisis in the short-term lending markets at the cost of more inflation.
  • Relax rules to allow foreigners and private equity (still further) to own US financial assets.
  • Let financial institutions offer shares to the government in exchange for being bailed out.

Anytime someone rushes you to a decision, watch your wallet.? The crisis is not as severe as many would say, and there are other ways of handling the situation.? Stopgap measures will hold us until after the new Congress is in place; there is no reason to rush a bailout.

Our Manic Markets

Our Manic Markets

The markets are manic.? It is rare that we have so many large moves in a short time.? Consider these graphs:

Gold

Gold is rising since the bailout announcement.

So are crude oil prices.

And the US Dollar falls.

Swap spreads rise.

And mortgage rates rise also.

Forces larger than the US government are acting on the world economy, leading to a partial repudiation of the US Dollar by some foreign entities.? This leads to higher implied volatility in the equity markets, and higher credit and swap spreads.? Commodity prices rise also. Would you want to own the securities of a country that overpromised what it would deliver in terms of debt repayment?

I think not, and the present economic environment is decidedly hostile to fixed US Dollar denominated assets.? Play in the US dollar with care… the short trade has much to commend it in the intermediate term, though the short term is cloudy.? Also, be careful on the long end of the US fixed income market… it could deliver some significant negative surprises.

Two Updates

Two Updates

I want to update my two Thursday evening pieces.? First with respect to Liquidity for the Government and no Liquidity for Anyone Else, the degree of financial stress in the short-term part of the market is worse.? Here’s the graph:

Much as the government wants to eliminate stress in the lending markets, I don’t think they are succeeding.? The little bounce still leaves the indicator below Thursday’s close.

One reader brought up the timing mismatch in this indicator, because I have a 2-year Treasury versus a 90-day commercial paper series.? I use the 2-year Treasury, because it is very sensitive to changes in expectations for short-term interest rates.? I suppose I could use 3-month T-bills to match, but this indicator arose out of comparing two different series that change in opposite directions when the economy strengthens or weakens.

Part 2

Now for my article Now We?re Talking Volatility.? Okay, so we had three 4% moves in a five business day period, well, now you have four of them.? Now how do the statistics look?

Oddly, after four 4% events in five days the average return is lower than that for three 4% days.? Most of the history here comes from the Great Depression, and we are dealing with the “Law of Small Numbers” here, so I am not inclined to offer definitive analysis here.? I will give you my guess, though.? Extreme volatility often begets an opportunity for profit, but also sometimes begets significant future losses.? I lean toward the profit side here in the short run, but I also realize that the actions of the US Government might not be the best for the markets, even if the markets have interpreted it positively in the short run.

I would be neutral-to-positive on the US equity market here.? The presidential cycle is a positive, as is the current market volatility.? Given the difficulties with financials, I can’t get very positive, though.? Play defense, wherever you are.

Liquidity for the Government and no Liquidity for Anyone Else

Liquidity for the Government and no Liquidity for Anyone Else

I have a quirky indicator called A2P2T2. It?s the yield on the Two-year Treasury minus the yield on A2/P2 commercial paper. Both are sensitive to credit confidence issues in the economy. When times are bad, the two-year yield falls, anticipating looser Fed policy. A2/P2 commercial paper is short-term unsecured promises to pay issued by corporations rated between A3/A- and Baa2/BBB. These are investment grade firms that are large or medium-sized, tending to the lower end of investment grade. When times are bad, the yields for A2/P2 commercial paper rise, because we are less willing to lend on an unsecured basis to borderline investment grade companies.

So, the difference between the two measures can indicate real stress.? Take a look at this graph over the last twelve years:

You can see the panics around LTCM (1998), the end of the tightening cycle in 2000, and the money market troubles in 2007.? On average, though, the two-year Treasury and A2/P2 commercial paper yield about the same.? That helps to define what a normal environment looks like, but we are nowhere near normal now.

This is the daily graph as of yesterday, hitting an all-time low for this series.? The series closed above the low levels, but is still below -300 basis points, and considerably worse than the panic in late 2007.

Conclusion

With all of the hoopla this morning about central banks acting to stem the current crisis, I don’t see how their policies are effective at all.? Yes, the government and high quality borrowers can get funds, but middling borrowers are squeezed, and bad borrowers are shut out.

The short term lending markets are in a panic, and most of the programs that the Fed put into place have failed, as of now.? Al McGuire, past coach of Marquette Basketball was once asked (something like), “Would you rather have an “A” student or a “C” student at the free throw line in a tense situation?”? His answer was the “C” student, because he wouldn’t think about the situation, he would just act, and sink the free throws.

The current Fed is clever.? Too clever by half.? Their policies have not added to the problems in the short-term lending markets, but neither have they helped, and they leave the Fed with a messier balance sheet than they have had for most of its history.

Does this make me worry?? Yes, somewhat.? We are facing the distinct possibility that the Fed will lose what little control they have over the short-term lending markets, and we haven’t even factored in the possibility of OPEC and China breaking their dollar pegs.? My advice: keep your duration short, and guard against inflation risk.? If you want a hedge against deflation, buy some long zeroes or long TIPS.? I prefer the latter.

Hodgepodge, Seven Notes

Hodgepodge, Seven Notes

When I wrote for RealMoney, I would do a number of “Miscellaneous Notes” posts, because I had something to say on a lot of topics.? In the blogosphere, that doesn’t play so well, so I try to avoid it.? This post is an exception to that rule.

1)? Let’s start with my knockoff of the S&P oscillator that Cramer likes to cite.? It is in buying territory now, and I have been adding to positions on net.? This level of selling pressure is tough to maintain in the short run.

2) Bill Rempel said that he likes high yield here.? I agree.? I was talking to a high yield manager friend of mine today, and asked him what they were doing. He said, not much, his main client was scared. (I know this client, you can time the market by doing the opposite of what they do.) So I asked him what he would do if he got a fresh allocation, and he said “leg in over the next ten months.” I think that is a reasonable strategy, because we haven’t really seen defaults yet. Defaults may come later this cycle, because covenant protection was lousy, but that will likely mean that severity will be higher when defaults come. He and his assistant suggested focusing on the higher quality “BB” bonds for now.? Maybe leg in over 18 months… or 24.

I learned a lot from this guy, especially trading tactics. It might surprise you, but as a bond manager, I was an aggressive trader. There are many micro-level opportunities to add value.

3) Look at the TED spread.? It was over 3% today, indicating a lack of confidence in the banking system.? We have not seen levels like ever, including 1987.

4) The Fed announced another new program today.? This is the first Fed where their creativity exceeds their balance sheet, and there’s the rub.? Here’s an FT Alphaville summary of the program.? But the best summary comes from Alea’s jck:

the fed is running of t-bills therefore they cannot sell t-bills in order to drain excess reserves resulting from their liquidity operations, enter treasury selling t-bills to the people and depositing the cash at a fed account, the net result being drain of excess reserves resulting from ?etc?

The Fed is running low on T-bills, and doesn’t want to expand the monetary base, so, they want the Treasury to do their dirty work for them.? Why not?? They are partners in crime.

I don’t see this ending well.? The Fed has applied to be able to pay interest on reserves now, as opposed to 2011, as passed by Congress.? Perhaps we need to think of the Fed as unitary with the Federal Government, and not possessing independence, except to the degree that the Federal Government itself lacks explicit authority, and so the Fed can act in ways that the Federal Government can’t, thus extending the power of the Federal Government in implicitly unconstitutional ways, though not explicitly.

5) There was some misunderstanding over my post last night over 99.5%.? What I mean is not 99.5% of days, but years.? I’m talking about protecting yourself against all but 1-in-200 year (not measured by normal distributions) threats.? We diversify against those threats, and some major threats — war, plague, famine, aggressive socialism, are not diversifiable.

6) One reader asked. “David, why do you think the AIG preferreds will have any value? Two years without a dividend, and a senior creditor who is committed to an orderly sale of all the assets, and the prospect of even worse CDS problems as they try to unwind the book… sounds like there is ample reason for the preferreds to trade to very near zero.

That might be so.? I don’t know, and when I wrote last night I had less detail than I have now.? I don’t like preferred stock, and it is difficult to tell what any security in the middle of the capital structure is worth in a stressed situation.

7) We face the continuing laxity in bank capital requirements.? I would support laxity if I knew that in the bull phase that capital requirements would get tighter.? But that has not been the case in the US.

That’s all for now.? Be wary, and be willing to commit some, but all of your funds in the present panic.

AIG: America’s Insurance Giant

AIG: America’s Insurance Giant

How Much Can the US Government Guarantee? For now, whatever they want, or so it seems.? Perhaps the new question should be what dodgy assets can the Federal Reserve cram into the monetary base?

I’m talking about AIG, and this is one place where only the Fed could have acted, aside from the State of New York (too small).? The Fed can act because in a crisis, they can lend to anyone on a collateralized basis.? Essentially, they took most of the company as collateral for the loan with 80% ownership if things go right.? If things go wrong it will only increase our monetary inflation.? (Note: regulators typically take over financial companies, and though AIG is a holding company with many insurers domiciled in NY, most of the company is not regulated by the State of New York.? The Treasury could not act, and the State of New York did its best, but it was not enough.)

Consider some of the good articles posted on the deal:

(Naked Capitalism live-blogs, almost)

(WSJ)

(Big Picture)

(NYT)

(Bloomberg)

I find it amusing that the former CEO of Allstate, Ed Liddy, is the new CEO.? Allstate, for all its complexity, is a matchbox car compared to AIG’s non-functional Maserati.? That said, I like the pick.? He will simplify, simplify, simplify.? He will also have the time to do it.? (And, if he found getting Allstate’s stock price up to be a challenge, so he said to me once, oh my, here is the challenge of a lifetime.)? I also find it amusing because AIG often did not think much of Allstate.

Now, the senior secured bank loan effectively subordinates all other holding company debt.? That said, that debt will probably rally as a result of the rescue.? I’m not so sure about the stock, though, this is a lot of dilution to swallow.? Even though the preferred may not get dividends for two years, that might rally on the rescue.

But could this have been avoided?? Yes.? It comes down to one simple concept: Risk Based Liquidity.? Never finance illiquid assets with liquid liabilities.? Doing so invites a run on the bank.? Now in the modern context, one has to consider contingent liquidity: do you have ratings triggers in your bonds, insurance agreements, or derivative agreements?? That sets up a slippery slope where a cliff used to be.? AIG got killed primarily because they allowed for short-term calls on cash as credit ratings declined.? If the troubles from Life Insurers regarding GICs is not enough, nor utilities or reinsurers with ratings downgrade clauses, certainly this should show the folly of allowing ratings triggers in insurance/financial agreements.? I’m not saying that insureds are stupid to ask for them; I am saying that they should be illegal.

AIG left itself in a position where a very bad credit environment could destroy the company.? That resulted from writing insurance on seemingly unlikely credit events that are now more likely than one could have expected.? Also, there are the years of accounting misstatements because of the culture of fear that pervaded the company.

What can I say?? The financial companies that have failed had liquid liabilities and illiquid assets.? The first job of risk control is to assure sufficient liquidity under 99.5% of all scenarios.? This was not true of Fannie, Freddie, Merrill, Bear, Lehman, AIG, Countrywide, etc.? LIquidity costs money, which is why short-sighted managements intent on current earnings scrimp on liquidity.? But liquidity is the lifeblood of business, far more so than earnings.

Remember this when you invest, and look for companies that provide for significant adverse deviation.? And, all this said, I worry for our republic.? Our liberties are slowly disappearing before us, in a haze of government rescues.

Redacted Version of the FOMC Statement

Redacted Version of the FOMC Statement

The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to keep its target for the federal funds rate at 2 percent.

Strains in financial markets have increased significantly and labor markets have weakened further. Economic growth appears to have slowed recently,activity expanded in the second quarter, partly reflecting a softening of householdgrowth in consumer spending. and exports. However, labor markets have softened further and financial markets remain under considerable stress. Tight credit conditions, the ongoing housing contraction, and some slowing in export growthelevated energy prices are likely to weigh on economic growth over the next few quarters. Over time, the substantial easing of monetary policy, combined with ongoing measures to foster market liquidity, should help to promote moderate economic growth.

Inflation has been high, spurred by the earlier increases in the prices of energy and some other commodities.commodities, and some indicators of inflation expectations have been elevated. The Committee expects inflation to moderate later this year and next year, but the inflation outlook remains highly uncertain.

TheAlthough downside risks to growth andremain, the upside risks to inflation are bothalso of significant concern to the Committee. The Committee will continue to monitor economic and financial developments carefully and will act as needed to promote sustainable economic growth and price stability.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; Christine M. Cumming;Timothy F. Geithner, Vice Chairman; Elizabeth A. Duke; Richard W. Fisher; Donald L. Kohn; Randall S. Kroszner; Frederic S. Mishkin; Sandra Pianalto; Charles I. Plosser,Plosser; Gary H. Stern; and Kevin M. Warsh. Ms. Cumming voted asVoting against was Richard W. Fisher, who preferred an increase in the alternatetarget for Timothy F. Geithner.the federal funds rate at this meeting.

=-=-=–==–==-=-=–=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=–=

Of Note:

  • No move, they are happy with the current policy.
  • Even Richard Fisher is happy with the current policy.
  • They will monitor economic and financial developments “carefully” now.
  • They see greater weakness in economic growth, labor markets, export growth, and the financial markets.
  • They are puzzled about inflation; they think/hope it will decrease soon.? (Watch for a surprise in the third quarter GDP deflator that undoes the surprise in the second quarter.)

The markets seem to be taking it in stride.? I’m glad they didn’t cut; perhaps they’ve learned something from the emergency cuts that they sterilized by not letting the monetary base grow much.? Sterilized interventions don’t do much.

Witnessing History

Witnessing History

I would like to post more at present, but my family and work have kept me busy.? A few notes:

  • There have been many who have suggested that FAS 157 (or 159)? is to blame for the current crisis.? Sorry, but that doesn’t fly.? The trouble does not stem from the accounting, but from the rotten investments.? High-quality liquid investments do not have problems getting priced for reporting purposes.? If you can’t get a liquid price, there is a reason for that.? Prices in illiquid markets jump around — that is a rule.
  • AIG might survive if? banks that face a lot of counterparty exposure decide to lend to them to minimize their own losses.? At this point, it looks unlikely, but it is possible that banks that would have large credit exposures to AIG would make a loan to AIG.? One other note, the $20 billion loan from their subsidiaries appears to be contingent on AIG getting significant help from other sources of financing.? No link, but from Bloomberg — ? “AIG hadn’t gotten access to the New York lifeline as of about 10:30 a.m., said David Neustadt, a spokesman for state Insurance Superintendent Eric Dinallo.
    “It would be part of a broader deal,”? Neustadt said. “If there’s no broader deal, then it doesn’t happen.” The regulators didn’t say yesterday that access to the cash would require such conditions.
  • So what does the FOMC do today?? My guess is that they loosen 25 basis points, or do something that gives an expectation of expanding the monetary base.? I suggested that this might have to happen last month, when I saw credit stress continuing to build in the banking system.
  • That said, the FOMC could stand pat, and offer to take in lower grade collateral via tri-party repos in order to help keep marginal instituions afloatt, while leaving the monetary base flat.? That’s been their default policy for the past year, and it may have delayed some of the credit stress, but it has not solved the basic problem of too much bad lending.? Not that the FOMC can solve it without buying all the bad debt, and extinguishing it in a burst of inflation.

We ask too of the Fed in bad times, and in good times, we don’t ask them to restrain the banks as much as we ought.? The problems we face today stem from the monetary and banking laxity from the mid-90s to 2007.? There’s a lot of bad debt out there, and no easy way to change it.? We are witnessing history now, as leverage collapses in big complex institutions, and in small places too (home mortgages), and we realize that even the government is too small to deal with the problems that they let grow for over a decade, and we didn’t care while the good times rolled on.? At present, the main open question is whether the defaults are big enough to trigger another wave of defaults.? As for that question, I don’t know the answer, but will try to gauge the risks as time moves on.

I will post later after the FOMC statement.

The Fundamentals of Residential Real Estate Market Bottoms

The Fundamentals of Residential Real Estate Market Bottoms

This article was posted at The Big Picture this morning as I was guest-blogging for Barry.? That’s a first for me, and there is no better site to do it at.? I present the article here for those that did not see it at The Big Picture.

=–==–==–==–==-=-=–==-=-=-=-=–==-=-=-=-=-=–=-=-=-==-=-=-

This piece completes a series that I started RealMoney, and continued at my blog.? For those with access to RealMoney, I did an article called The Fundamentals of Market Tops, where I concluded in early 2004 that we weren?t at a top yet.? For those without access, Barry Ritholtz put a large portion of it at his blog.? I then wrote another piece at RM applying the framework to residential housing in mid-2005, and I came to a different conclusion: yes, residential real estate [RRE] was near its top.? Recently, I posted a piece a number of readers asked me to write: The Fundamentals of Market Bottoms, where I concluded we weren?t yet at a bottom for the equity markets.

This piece completes the series for now, and asks whether we are at the bottom for RRE prices. If not, when, and how much more pain?

Before I start this piece, I have to deal with the issue of why RRE market tops and bottoms are different.? The signals for a bottom are not automatically the inverse of those for a top. Tops and bottoms for RRE are different primarily because of debt investors.? At market tops, typically credit spreads are tight, but they have been tight for several years, while seemingly cheap leverage builds up.? There is a sense of invincibility for the RRE market, and the financing markets reflect that. Bottoms are more jagged, with debt financing expensive to non-existent.

As a friend of mine once said, ?To make a stock go to zero, it has to have a significant slug of debt.?? The same is true of RRE and that is what differentiates tops from bottoms.? At tops, no one cares about the level of debt or financing terms.? The rare insolvencies that happen then are often due to fraud.? But at bottoms, the only thing that investors care about is the level of debt or financing terms.

Why Do RRE Defaults Happen?

It costs money to sell a home ? around 5-10% of the sales price. In a RRE bear market, those costs fall entirely on the seller. That?s why economic incentives for the owners of RRE decline once their equity on a mark-to-market basis declines below that threshold. They no longer have equity so much as an option on the equity of the home, should they continue to pay on their mortgage and prices rise.

As RRE prices have fallen, a larger percentage of the housing stock has fallen below the 10% equity threshold. Near the peak in October 2005, maybe 5% of all houses were below the threshold. Recently, I estimated that that figure was closer to 12%. It may go as high as 20% by the time we reach bottom.

Defaults occur in RRE when there would be negative equity in a sale, and a negative life event occurs:

  • Unemployment
  • Death
  • Disability
  • Disaster
  • Divorce
  • Large mortgage payment rise from a reset or a recast

The negative life events, which, aside from changes in mortgage payments, can?t be expected, cause the borrower to give up and default. During a RRE bear market, most people in a negative equity on sale position don?t have a lot of extra assets to fall back on, so anything that interrupts the normal flow of income raises the odds of default. So long as there are a large number of homes in a negative equity on sale position, a certain percentage will keep sliding into foreclosure when negative life events hit. For any individual, it is random, but for the US as a whole, a predictable flow of foreclosures occur.

Examining Economic Actors as We near the Bottom

Starting at the bottom of the housing ?food chain,? I?m going to consider how various parties act as we get near the RRE price bottom. At the bottom, typically Federal Reserve policy is loose, and the yield curve is very steep. Financial companies, if they are in good shape, can profit from lending against their inexpensive deposit bases.

This presumes that the remaining banks are in good shape, with adequate capacity to lend. That?s not true at present. Regulation has moved into triage mode, where the regulators divide the institutions into healthy, questionable, and dead. The bottom typically is not reached until the number of questionable institutions starts to shrink. Right now that figure is growing for banks, thrifts, and credit unions.

The Fed?s monetary policy can only stimulate the healthy institutions. Over time, many of the questionable will slow growth, and build up enough free assets to write off bad debts. Those free assets will come through capital raises and modest profitability. Others will fail, and their assets will be taken over by stronger institutions, and losses realized by the FDIC, etc. The FDIC, and other insurance funds, will have their own balancing act, as they will need to raise premiums, but not so much that it harms borderline institutions.

Another tricky issue is the Treasury-Eurodollar [TED] Spread. Near the bottom, there should be significant uncertainty about the banking system, and the willingness of banks to lend to each other. Spreads on corporate and trust preferreds should be relatively high as well. Past the bottom, all of these spreads should be rallying for surviving institutions.

Financing for purchasing a house in a RRE bear market is expensive to nonexistent, but the underwriting is strong. At the bottom, volumes increase as enough buyers have built up sufficient earning power and savings to put a decent amount down, and be able to comfortably finance the balance at the new reduced housing prices, even with relatively high mortgage rates relative to where the government borrows.

Many other players in RRE financing will find themselves stretched, and some will be broken. Consider these players:

1) Home equity lenders will be greatly reduced, and won?t return in size until well after the bottom is passed.

2) Many unregulated and liberally regulated lenders are out of business. The virtue of a strong balance sheet and a deposit franchise speaks for itself.

3) Buyers of subordinated RMBS have been destroyed; same for many leveraged players in ?high quality? paper. Don?t even mention subprime; that game is over, and may even be turning up now as vultures pick through the rubble. This has implications for MBIA, Ambac, and other financial guarantors, since they guaranteed similar business. How big will their losses be?

4) Mortgage insurers are impaired. In earlier RRE bear markets, that meant earnings went negative for a while. In this case, one has failed, and some more might fail as well.

5) Do the GSEs continue to exist in their present form? That question never came up in prior bear markets, but it will have to be answered before the bottom comes. Will the FHLB take losses from their mortgage holdings? Will it be severe enough that it affects their creditworthiness? I doubt it, but anything is possible in this down cycle, and the FHLBs have absorbed a lot of RRE mortgage financing.

6) Securitization gets done limitedly, if at all. This is already true for non-GSE-insured loans; the question is how much Fannie and Freddie will do. My suspicion is near the bottom, as loan volumes increase, banks will be looking for ways to move mortgages off of their balance sheets, and securitization should increase.

7) The losses have to go somewhere, which brings up one more player, the US Government. Through the institutions the US sponsors, and through whatever m?lange of programs the US uses to directly bail out financially broken individuals and institutions, a lot of the pain will get directed back to taxpayers, and, those who lend to the US government in its own currency. It is possible that foreign lenders to the US may rebel at some point, but if the OPEC nations in the Middle East or China haven?t blinked by now, I?m not sure what level of current account deficit would make them change their policy.

That said, the recent housing bill wasn?t that amazing. Look for the US Government to try again after the election.

A Few More Economic Actors to Consider

Now let?s consider the likely actions of parties that are closer to the building and buying of houses.

1) Toward the bottom, or shortly after that, we should see an increase in speculative buying from investors. These will be smarter speculators than the ones buying in 2005; they will not only not rely on capital gains in order to survive, but they require a risk premium. Renting the property will have to generate a very attractive return in order to get to buy the properties.

2) Renters will be doing the same math and will begin buying in volume when they can finance it prudently, and save money over renting.

3) At the bottom, only the best realtors are left. It?s no longer a seemingly ?easy money? profession.

4) At the bottom, only the best builders survive, and typically they trade for 50-125% of their written-down book value. Leverage declines significantly. Land gets written down. JVs get rationalized. Fewer homes get built, so that inventories of unsold homes finally decline.

As for current homeowners, the mortgage resets and recasts have to be past the peak at the bottom, with the end in sight. (In my piece on real estate market tops, I suggested that after the bubble popped ?Short rates would have to rally significantly to bail these borrowers out. We would need the fed funds target at around 2%.? Well, we are there, but I didn?t expect the TED spread to be so high.)

5) Defaults begin burning out, because the number of the number of properties in a negative equity on sale position begins to decline.

6) Places that had the biggest booms have the biggest busts, even if open property is scarce. Remember, a piece of land is not priceless, but is only worth the subjective present value of future services that can be derived from the land to the marginal buyer. When the marginal buyers are nonexistent, and lenders are skittish, prices can fall a long way, even in supply-constrained markets.

For a parallel, consider pricing in the art market. Many pieces of art are priceless, but the market as a whole tends to follow the liquidity of the rich marginal art buyer. When liquidity is scarce, prices tend to fall, though it is often masked by a lack of trading in an illiquid market.

When financing expands dramatically in any sector, there is a tendency for the assets being financed to appreciate in value in the short run. This was true of the Nasdaq in the late ’90s, commercial real estate in the mid-to-late 1980s, lesser-developed-country lending in the late ’70s, etc. Financing injects liquidity, and liquidity creates confidence in the short run, which can become self-reinforcing, until the cash flows can?t support the assets in question, and then the markets become self-reinforcing on the downside, as buying power collapses.

The Bottom Is Coming, But I Wouldn?t Get Too Happy Yet

There are reasons to think that we are at or near the bottom now:

But I don?t think we are there yet, and here is why:

My best guess is that we are two years away from a bottom in RRE prices, and that prices will have to fall around 10-20% from here in order to restore more normal price levels versus rents, incomes, long term price trends, etc. Hey, it could be worse, Fitch is projecting a 25% decline.

Not all of the indicators that I put forth have to appear for there to be a market bottom. A preponderance of them appearing would make me consider the possibility, and that is not the case now.

Some of my indicators are vague and require subjective judgment. But they?re better than nothing, and keep me in the game today. Avoiding the banks, homebuilders, and many related companies has helped my performance over the last three years. I hope that I ? and you ? can do well once the bottom nears. There will be bargains to be had in housing-related and financial stocks.

Full disclosure: no positions in companies mentioned

Clipping Coins, With No Added Inflation

Clipping Coins, With No Added Inflation

On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal had an article called Food Makers Scrimp on Ingredients In an Effort to Fatten Their Profits. Good article, but I’m here to draw a different conclusion than the article did.? How much impact does substituting cheaper ingredients in prepared food have on the CPI if the product price does not change?? No effect, but you are likely getting a lower quality good.

I don’t have troubles with the theory behind hedonic adjustment.? I have troubles with how it works in practice, and I wonder whether it can be done properly at all, as I wrote in my RM article Solid Foundation for Inflation Fears.

One requirement for doing hedonic adjustment right, is that both the new and old goods must be offered side-by-side for a while, and that people can clearly tell the differences between the old and new goods.? At that point, the economist can take the prices paid and quantities bought of both goods, and make a hedonic adjustment.

But typically, that doesn’t happen.? The old product disappears when the new product appears, and when features are upgraded, companies loudly announce the enhancements (and in a soft voice, the higher price).? When features/ingredients are downgraded, the companies say little to nothing.

But mere technical measurement of quality changes does not capture the perceived quality difference to the consumer.? Consider a soft drink company that changes its bottle size from 16 to 20 ounces (25% bigger), while raising the price 33%.? The consumers may say in their heads, “I only buy one bottle per day, and I don’t need the extra four ounces, but I have to buy one bottle of my favorite soda; I can’t buy 80% of a bottle, and this is it.”? The consumers aren’t 6.7% worse off in this example; the inflationary effect should be higher.

Same thing for computers.? Any comparison of features will overstate the perceived improvement, because for most needs of companies and individuals, computers run about the same — marginally improved hardware, and software that eats up a lot of resources, leading to little extra benefit.

With a little sympathy toward those who calculate the CPI, I will say that I think their job is tough.? Capitalist economies are diverse and dynamic.? They sample a smallish portion of what goes on, often on a static basket of goods that is infrequently updated, and try to generalize to the large, diverse, dynamic economy that we live in.? It is tough, and I know they have to do it for a wide number of reasons.? They use shortcuts.? They have to, in order to get their jobs done.? But those shortcuts bias the calculation of the CPI downward.

My advice would be this: aside from products where quality differences can be plainly figured (both goods trading side-by-side, with differences clearly identified), drop the hedonic adjustments.? This is one of the reasons why US inflation is so much lower than much of the rest of the world, and the government should be more honest about the value of our currency.

In closing, as an aside, can you imagine a question given at the Presidential debates that went something like this: “Senator, the leading bond manager of our country, and many leading financial writers (e.g. James Grant, Barry Ritholtz) have argued that the way that the government calculates the CPI is flawed, and understates the change in the cost of living.? If elected President, what would you do about this?? Further, how would it affect who you appoint to the FOMC?”

That one would probably even make Obama pause.? McCain? I like the guy, but I don’t know what he would say.? What it would point out, is how little scrutiny is really given to a core statistic that affects our lives in many ways, because it affect indexed payments, and helps define how fast the economy is really growing.? If I am correct in my assertion in the degree of understatement of the CPI, then we have been in recession for some time already.

And, for me, though I am doing well, all my friends are less well off than me.? From what I can gauge, I don’t see many whose standard of living is rising now.? So it goes.

Theme: Overlay by Kaira