patrick.net

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3qc

As far as his criticism of my comments, it is apparent that Bill misunderstood the gist of my statement.

Indeed I did. I was reacting purely on the past-tense of the title of this thread.

what do you think would happen to current housing valuations?

fall further, of course.

Contrary to common perception, this is not an unalloyed good thing, however.

doesn't quite chart the debt overhang correctly but it is close enough as there are TRILLIONS of dollars still at default risk wrt housing.

This money isn't GS's at risk -- they already made their money betting against housing -- it's every last saver's money at risk, since banks don't lend out phantom money -- loans that go out are booked against their depositors' savings.

The MASSIVE MISTAKES were made 2002-2007. What is left for now is simply damage control and saving the system from further collapse

And which corporations have benefited the most from this situation? The answers seem obvious.

I don't think a $3T cross-default is really good for anyone.

The core problem this country is facing is that the bullshit flying around is just too great. Nobody can see the root faults in the system, so they continue to destabilize things.

Preserving valuations today is not a root fault. Our problems go much deeper than that.

6

_John_ 2011 Nov 18, 3:06am

Housing valuations falling to market clearing prices is definitely not an unalloyed good thing, but it is also not an unalloyed bad thing. It is very bad for individuals and financial institutions that are overleveraged on depreciating assets. It is good for prudent people that do not wish to allocate an excessive percentage of their income to housing costs.

Bank do indeed lend out phantom money. It is called leverage and overleverging is one of the core causes of the financial crisis.

http://www.worldbank.org/financialcrisis/pdf/levrage-ratio-web.pdf

And the money isn't every last saver's at risk, it is every last taxpayer's at risk due to the goverment guarantees of the FDIC, GSEs and FHA.

And, as has been documented frequently on this website, the bailouts have been massively beneficial to a select few at the long-term expense of the majority. It is entirely probable that our financial system would be much stronger today if we hadn't kept kicking the can down the road.

7

FortWayne 2011 Nov 18, 3:23am

This needs a "Like" button.

8 edvard2 2011 Nov 18, 3:45am

This is sort of a generic assessment, but while plenty of blame can be placed on the various real estate and financial industries that encouraged the bubble, The bubble would never have occurred if Americans hadn't gone off and bought those houses to start with. People need to decouple themselves from the notion of the "American Dream" because times have changed and just because you have a family, kids, or get married doesn't mean you must automatically buy a house, and especially not one that's overpriced- something people in places like the Bay Area still seem to be incapable of comprehending.

9

Â¥ 2011 Nov 18, 3:47am

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCMDO

Bank do indeed lend out phantom money. It is called leverage and overleverging is one of the core causes of the financial crisis.

No they don't.

Leverage is borrowing someone else's money and then investing it.

This is EXACTLY what banks do, though they call their borrowings "deposits".

it is every last taxpayer's at risk due to the goverment guarantees of the FDIC, GSEs and FHA.

Same difference when we're talking about trillions. Only "savers" (ie not-poor people) have money, so they are the ones that will be taking the hit if & when this debt bubble completes its collapse like you so clearly want it to.

It is entirely probable that our financial system would be much stronger today if we hadn't kept kicking the can down the road.

LOL.

$50T, no problem.

Same graph with leverage in red:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3qR

taking our hit and going back to the leverage of 2000 would be a $20T pullback from here.

10 mdovell 2011 Nov 18, 4:34am

There's nothing wrong with leveraging but it depends how much. It reminds me of the dot com crash when so many companies just looked at revenue instead of outright profits. You can only take a loss for so long on venture capitalists money. They pulled back when they didn't get a real return.

If people don't know where to put their money they'll put it in a bank. If a bank doesn't know where to put its money then something is wrong.

11

Â¥ 2011 Nov 18, 4:38am

mdovell says

If a bank doesn't know where to put its money then something is wrong.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3qU

12

TPB 2011 Nov 18, 5:03am

Please for God sakes somebody say a Name!

Not one single person was mentioned in the original post.
If terrorism has taught me anything, fighting a nameless invisible enemy, is an impossible endeavor. Start with naming Names, then demanding accountability, pick some more names until Washing cares to do something.

Compile a Nixon shitlist already.

13

_John_ 2011 Nov 18, 5:23am

Read the original post again. Goldman Sachs

Here are some more: Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner, Angelo Mozilo, Franklin Raines, Bank of New York Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide Financial

14

TPB 2011 Nov 18, 5:26am

Oh So that's why Corporations are people now, so we can just blame a faceless corporation.

There was more than those four people involved. Those are the same characters that claim they did it for our Bank of New York Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide Financial.

Who is their Daddy and what does he Do?

15

_John_ 2011 Nov 18, 5:42am

Corporations aren't faceless. The have Chairmen, CEOs, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, etc. If you are truly interested, it doesn't take much digging to put names and faces to the responsible companies. Compile your own list and quit sitting around expecting others to do the work for you.

16 corntrollio 2011 Nov 18, 5:44am

As far as his criticism of my comments, it is apparent that Bill misunderstood the gist of my statement. "Artificially low interest rates and GSE-subsidized loan origination" refer to our current situation. Not 2002-07!

Yeah, I was confused by Bill's response too. Currently we are propping up the residential real estate market significantly through various governmental actions, including the two that 9126 mentioned.

Preserving valuations today is not a root fault.

It's not a root fault because it's just trying to preserve the ex post status quo. But it is a problem still. People would be better off if house prices were lower. The main people benefiting from high prices are people who make commissions or other fees based on the price of the house (or its loan). The people who weren't bubble buyers will still be able to sell for a profit, even if we get back to market pricing.

17

_John_ 2011 Nov 18, 5:53am

And maybe I am missing something, but it seems like Bill is suggesting that we try to keep the credit bubble inflated. Extend and pretend as a viable long-term solution? Good luck with that one.

18

Â¥ 2011 Nov 18, 6:33am

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HHMSDODNS

Extend and pretend as a viable long-term solution? Good luck with that one.

Not just that, no.

But we can't collapse our way to prosperity, either.

19

Â¥ 2011 Nov 18, 6:35am

corntrollio says

People would be better off if house prices were lower. The main people benefiting from high prices are people who make commissions or other fees based on the price of the house (or its loan).

These prices do not matter to the skimmers in FIRE.

What does matter is the $10T of mortgage debt outstanding.

This is not phantom money, it's everyone's savings.

20 mdovell 2011 Nov 18, 6:46am

I think the biggest thing that is never really said by anyone is this...

Exactly how will the baby boomer generation retire?

If everyone has basically put their money in the same 401(k), 403(b), IRA, 501(k), stocks, bonds, etc.

With a house the market is limited to the local market. By that I mean that if a large number of homes in one town in one state happens it probably won't matter to other areas. But with stocks it is the same ones...

Retirement as a concept has no real basis outside of having large numbers of children. By replacing the family with the state (also religion with the state) it implies that somehow this would all be paid for by someone/something.

For any investment to make sense it must be able to be purchased and sold. Without the concept of selling it that would be entrapment and pretty much illegal (I helped bust a guy selling false securities 8 or so years ago).

So if the first boomers start to sell it off at what point is the Rubicon crossed and people start selling to avoid losing more value? No one can survive on social security alone. Medicare won't pay non medical bills. So if they dip into savings earlier this won't be that odd to see.

21 RagingRanter 2011 Nov 18, 12:50pm

Bellingham Bill can't accept reality it seems. Low interest rates certainly were the main cause of the bubble. Here in Canada we've got much tighter lending standards than the US. Yet housing is arching into what looks like a parabolic bubble like we've never seen before. This despite the apparent weaknesses in the world economy. That cannot be explained by anything other than low interest rates. Lending standards can be as tight as you want to make them. Ultra-low rates entice too much borrowing and too much debt.

22

Â¥ 2011 Nov 18, 12:54pm

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3r9

Low interest rates certainly were the main cause of the bubble

Boom yes, bubble no.

The difference between a boom and bubble is simply sustainability.

Low(er) interest rates themselves do not make home prices unsustainable, the purchase price rises as the monthly payment stays the same.

Though there is a feedback effect or two here, since increasing home prices attract specuvestors, and higher home prices do allow for home equity withdrawal, which artificially stimulates the economy.

Ultra-low rates entice too much borrowing and too much debt.

utterly vague and ideological-driven statement.

Rates fell from 8% in 2000 to 5% in 2003. Yes, home prices shot up in response, but the monthly payment did not change!

Debt doesn't kill you, it's the debt service.

23 RagingRanter 2011 Nov 18, 12:58pm

I just edited my comment to add that you "can't accept reality". Just thought, out of fairness, that I'd point that out, since you responded to the first version. :)

However, given your response, I'd say my edit was accurate. Stating that ultra-low interest rates encourage too much debt is not ideological, it is a basic cause and effect relationship. One does not have to be a Milton Friedman disciple to understand that.

24 RagingRanter 2011 Nov 18, 1:06pm

Debt doesn't kill you, it's the debt service.

That's like saying cancer doesn't kill you, it's the tumour. In order for debt servicing costs to hurt you, you must first take on debt. The more debt you have, the quicker the servicing costs will kill you if things go south. See the relationship now?

25

Â¥ 2011 Nov 18, 2:55pm

. The more debt you have, the quicker the servicing costs will kill you if things go south. See the relationship now?

No. If debt's a disease, then ZIRP is the cure : )

26

Â¥ 2011 Nov 18, 2:58pm

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3rb

Stating that ultra-low interest rates encourage too much debt is not ideological, it is a basic cause and effect relationship. One does not have to be a Milton Friedman disciple to understand that.

Banks theoretically determine the risk.

I agree that lower interest rates don't really benefit anybody in real estate, since the supply of real estate (in built areas) can not rise in response to increased demand -- the increased buying power just ends up in higher prices.

But the bubble times of 2004-2006 were actually executed in a time of rising interest rates:

your theories are wrong, find some new ones.

27

Â¥ 2011 Nov 18, 3:01pm

Note that I divide recent history into two periods -- the boom (2002-2004) and the bubble (2004-2007).

The bubble did not appear in Texas, even though they enjoyed the same low interest rates as the rest of the country.

Plug *that* into your ideology.

28 thomas.wong1986 2011 Nov 18, 3:38pm

The bubble did not appear in Texas, even though they enjoyed the same low interest rates as the rest of the country.
Plug *that* into your ideology.

Your missing variable was California buyers + Irrational Exuberance.

29 Austinhousingbubble 2011 Nov 18, 7:03pm

Ultra-low rates entice too much borrowing and too much debt.

utterly vague and ideological-driven statement.

Utter this utter that...a litany of St. Louis Fed hyperlinks does not a doyen-of-all-things financial-crisis-related make.

I have but anecdotal evidence to bolster what you so readily disregard as pish-tosh. I was on an eight month contract in Central Florida in 2004-05. My neighbour at the time decided to buy a 1200 sq foot shotgun house in a not-great part of town with a monthly payment of almost $1900. He was renting the very handsome 1100 sq ft bungalow next to mine for nearly half that amount. I knew he was spreading his and his wife's means rather thin in order to make this transaction happen. When I asked what his motivations were, he recited what he'd read about super low interest rates and something about throwing his money away on rent. Pretty soon, all that I heard being parroted by other friends and colleagues was "(gasp), but interest rates are so low!" (Actually...I still hear it.) Unless I am to wholly disregard what I readily perceived with my own senses, low interest rates were absolutely a huge inducement for new home debtors in those years. There is nothing ideological about this assertion.

Rates fell from 8% in 2000 to 5% in 2003. Yes, home prices shot up in response, but the monthly payment did not change!

How could you utter what must be the uttermost insane thing I've ever read? I am utterly incredulous. Granted, the total monthly *might* have remained at or close to par IF a buyer took out an interest-only or some other exotic loan product. Otherwise, what I recall was that the perceived rate of appreciation (housing wealth) was enough to allay any misgivings that a buyer might otherwise have had about overextending themselves from month to month. "Real Estate never goes down in value!" -- another popular canard.

...

30

tatupu70 2011 Nov 18, 9:54pm

Austinhousingbubble says

When I asked what his motivations were, he recited what he'd read about super low interest rates and something about throwing his money away on rent.

Wait a second. You heard something from a guy down the street?? I stand corrected. All the supporting data is meaningless--you have certainly found the answer.

Just a quick question though--interest rates are very near historic lows. House prices continue to fall. Shouldn't they be rising?

31

FortWayne 2011 Nov 19, 1:20am

tatupu70 says

Just a quick question though--interest rates are very near historic lows. House prices continue to fall. Shouldn't they be rising?

Any reasonable man would realize we are coming out of a bubble and low rates simply can't keep prices up like they would in normal times. This is a seller market, not a buyer marker except for a few deals at the auction.

When rates go up in the future, prices will go down, and cash will be king again.

32 RagingRanter 2011 Nov 19, 2:17am

Tatupu70, a bubble is an unsustainable price increase. Period. We all agree on that definition. Therefore, by definition, a bubble cannot be sustained indefinitely, even with zero interest rates. Because a bubble, by definition, cannot be sustained by ANY means. If it could be, it's not a bubble. So even though the current low interest rates could not be expected to sustain the bubble at its peak, they are certainly preventing the complete deflating of the bubble, and by extension, an unwinding of the whole housing mess.

Raise interest rates back up to a more natural level (by â€˜naturalâ€™ I mean a level where people could expect a return on short term deposits to equal or slightly exceed the inflation rate â€“ currently around 3%, which would mean mortgage rates of 7% or more) and see what happens to housing prices then.

Had interest rates been kept higher during both periods Bellingham mentions, the bubble simply would not have happened. Low interest rates increased the demand for credit, while they simultaneously allowed banks to extend themselves further, and thereby increased the supply of money, much of which went into real estate.

Despite tatupu70's dismissals as "anecdotal", Austinhousingubble's observations are not isolated. I'm seeing the same thing here in Canada, in all our major cities. I'm also observing people running around buying houses they can barely afford "because interest rates are so low!!!" and "You're just throwing your money away on rent." People buying houses so expensive that they can barely afford to live is an unsustainable situation by definition, and I donâ€™t care how much better Canadian lending standards are. Tighter lending standards have certainly helped keep things going, but the Canadian bubble, like all bubbles, will burst.

There are certain aspects of human behaviour that simply must be observed in a qualitative sense. This is something the stats monkeys and econometricians will never accept. The Canadian banks and real estate associations are all churning out data that allegedly proves we are not in a housing bubble. Sound familiar? You need only visit Youtube to see various American "experts" presenting the exact same statistical evidence to the viewers as recently as 2007. Sometimes the stats monkeys overlook things, even in hindsight. Other times they're just wrong.

33

Â¥ 2011 Nov 19, 2:30am

Austinhousingbubble says

Otherwise, what I recall was that the perceived rate of appreciation (housing wealth) was enough to allay any misgivings that a buyer might otherwise have had about overextending themselves from month to month. "Real Estate never goes down in value!" -- another popular canard.

If banks had not abandoned underwriting, the lower interest rates would have not mattered.

Lower interest rates themselves did not cause anyone to overextend themselves.

Had interest rates been kept higher during both periods Bellingham mentions, the bubble simply would not have happened. Low interest rates increased the demand for credit, while they simultaneously allowed banks to extend themselves further, and thereby increased the supply of money, much of which went into real estate.

So? Your analysis here is missing about a dozen OTHER factors that were also contributory to higher prices, and these factors are what turned the housing boom into the bubble.

The rise of 80/20 lending.

NINJA loans.

Pay option (negative am) lending.

Aggressive Subprime lending that stuffed the lower end of the market with buyers, allowing move-up transactions all along the line.

Automated application approval (allowing brokers to submit applications until they passed).

CDOs and CDOs of CDOs.

An utterly corrupted debt ratings system.

The feedback of high home prices giving households increased buying power via home equity loans (this is the one thing that Texas limited since they had 80% LTV hard limits on HELOCs).

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3rC

People buying houses so expensive that they can barely afford to live is an unsustainable situation by definition

No, that's just normal. People expect future wage inflation to bail them out. From 1950 to 2005, that was a rational expectation.

"Low interest rate" were contributory to the 1986-1988 bubble, but things were not allowed to get so out of hand then.

Hell, even in 2005 I thought prices were too high but inflation would come and save anyone.

This was before I heard about Casey Serin and understood that so much of the housing bubble -- and, basically, the very economy itself -- was based on fraud, fiction, and fantasy.

34 RagingRanter 2011 Nov 19, 4:14am

Bellingham, most of those "other factors" could not have happened in an environment of higher interest rates. Higher rates would have meant that the so-called housing "boom" you refer to would not have happened. Had the boom not happened, housing prices would not have been perceived to have been on a never-ending price ladder upwards, and banks and mortgage insurers would not have been so quick to lend out NINJA loans and zero-down mortgages.

It is true that low interest rates were not the only factor. The whole concept of mortgage insurance is certainly an aggravating factor. Go back to requiring a minimum 20% down, and you wouldn't need mortgage insurance. This would substantially decrease the demand for loans, and then we might well have interest rates even lower than they were, but still no bubble.

Sounds like I'm contradicting myself. But I'm not. "Low" is a relative term. And starting with the Russian currency crisis and Asian economic crisis of 1997-98, the Fed responded by drastically lowering interest rates. These lower interest rates were too "low" relative to the domestic economic environment (the domestic environment that included mortgage insurance, ABCPs and all the other market-distorting goodies that create a bias towards home ownership). Thus, the bubble really can be traced back to low interest rates. Said rates might have been just fine against the backdrop of sane mortgage policies, but they were too low to discourage home-buying against the backdrop of insured mortgages and banks that were too easily able to package their lending risks and sell them to unsuspecting investors at AAA ratings.

Interest rates must be determined according to the financial environment within which they exist, not some idealized, distortion-free environment that does not exist. We can both agree that there are MULTIPLE market-distorting factors that fed into and perpetuated the boom/bubble, and all the behaviours that went along with it. Alas, these problems have not even been acknowledged by policy makers yet, let alone fixed.

35

Â¥ 2011 Nov 19, 4:23am

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3rI

most of those "other factors" could not have happened in an environment of higher interest rates

Sure they could.

Had the boom not happened, housing prices would not have been perceived to have been on a never-ending price ladder upwards

Housing is ALWAYS driven UP by "affordability". Yes, this is a ratchet effect / ladder.

Housing is unlike any other good since the supply of land is utterly fixed in urban areas, and building new stock itself is a time-consuming process too.

The apartment I was renting 20 years ago in LA for $700/mo now rents for $1500/mo. It's the same apartment, location, and community, yet it costs twice as much.

That is the ratchet effect of housing, in all areas where there's any balance between supply and demand.

The 1990s saw real wages climb, and what was odd was gas prices remained very low.

This REALLY primed the pump for housing. $1 gas made distant suburbs like Salinas and Los Banos doable, which brought appreciation trend further afield as buyers became locked out of the insane dotcom-fueled bay area ca 2000.

Interest rate drops were one cause that got the party started, but the dirty secret of the bubble was that all the 2/28 teaser-rate loans allowed people to basically avoid paying much interest at all anyway.

The risk layering that was allowed to go on 2002-2007 was simply insane. Fed Interest rate policy were neither necessary nor sufficient to create the bubble overreach -- this was engineered by the mortgage industry in cahoots with lax Federal regulation and oversight.

Putting people into more loan than they could repay was the core cause of the bubble -- literally -- mortgage brokers only had to qualify people on the teaser rate, not the fully-amortizing back-end rate. Insane! Interest rates had NOTHING to do with that, since fixed is fixed and even ARMs have not reset outside what people could afford to pay now.

And starting with the Russian currency crisis and Asian economic crisis of 1997-98, the Fed responded by drastically lowering interest rates.

No they didn't.

Thus, the bubble really can be traced back to low interest rates.

blah blah blah. You've got your ideology and you're sticking to it. Got it.

You've got part of the picture, but you're missing what happened ca. 2003-2007, when the bubble took over the macro economy:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3rJ

36 thomas.wong1986 2011 Nov 19, 5:07am

I'm seeing the same thing here in Canada, in all our major cities. I'm also observing people running around buying houses they can barely afford "because interest rates are so low!!!" and "You're just throwing your money away on rent."

There are certain aspects of human behaviour that simply must be observed in a qualitative sense. This is something the stats monkeys and econometricians will never accept.

Yes, this certainly occured in CA, USA very early on. Robert Shiller wrote his book on this both as it relates to then Stock Bubble (1999) and Housing Bubble (2005). But it was frankly ignored by Economists and certainly by Journalists.

37 thomas.wong1986 2011 Nov 19, 5:16am