patrick.net

"Greenspan’s Fed allowing lending to go completely insane 2003-2006 was the main driver of the speculative blowoff."

Indeed the Greenspan Fed caused this spectacular bubble. But they did it unwittingly, by giving everyone a huge incentive to borrow as much money as possible - super low interest rates. The lenders went crazy because they could make big profits on the margin spreads and fees from selling the loans to institutional investors who were dying for a little more yield, and could get it by buying MBSs. There was a bubble mania in lending that fueled the real estate bubble.

Risk quality did not matter to any of them because they were confident that there would be no significant problems, and that the extra yields for subprime etc. would be enough to pay for the extra defaults that would come from the loose lending. They really did believe this. I personally talked with many of these wall street and institutional people during that time. The easy underwriting was motivated by everyone's exuberant greed chasing the super easy money.

So the Fed did more than just allow the lenders to be stupid - The Fed gave them a big profit incentive to do so.

Besides, they all believed that if things got bad Greenspan would just print more money to keep the game going (they called this the Greenspan Put). But the Fed took the punch bowl away during 2005, and then the money was not so cheap anymore. And the game started to slow down.

Market cycles are normal. But this one became a spectacular bubble because of the gasoline that the Fed poured on the fire from after 9/11 2001 until 2005.

Bob2356,

Based on current census data and forecasts, including immigration, the population will steadily grow during the next 30 years.

And examining the population profile by 5 year age bands (including mortality rates by age band) shows that the adult working age population will keep growing.

And the pop by age band multiplied by the normal household formation ratios shows that the number of households will keep growing.

And the number of households by age band multiplied by the normal home ownership rate by age band shows that the number of homeowners will keep growing.

I do think that the boomer bulge being followed by smaller cohorts will make the McMansions potentially in oversupply. At the same time if boomers look to downsize they will be doing so at about the same time that their children (the echo boom, another bulge) will be looking to buy their first homes. This could cause a shortage of smaller homes while leaving a surplus of McMansions.

Also important is the likely migration to warmer climates. This would exacerbate the surplus and shortages on a regional basis.

Zephyr says

Market cycles are normal. But this one became a spectacular bubble because of the gasoline that the Fed poured on the fire from after 9/11 2001 until 2005.

The interest rate drops from 2001 through 2003 (8.5% to 5%) got the party started but it was "innovation" in mortgage products that kept it going once rates were adjusted upwards 2004-2006.

The Fed was putting the brakes on the larger economy but as the graph shows there wasn't much control authority (using the aeronautic term) over the mortgage market.

In 2006 a borderline-unemployed Casey Serin was able to waltz into the market and "buy" 10 houses, borrowing $2.1M from numerous institutions that are mostly no longer with us now.

Here's what Greenspan said about that, in 2005:

Where once more-marginal applicants would simply have been denied credit, lenders are now able to quite efficiently judge the risk posed by individual applicants and to price that risk appropriately. These improvements have led to rapid growth in subprime mortgage lending; indeed, today subprime mortgages account for roughly 10 percent of the number of all mortgages outstanding, up from just 1 or 2 percent in the early 1990s

Part of the Fed's charter is to oversee the financial system. The Executive also has various alphabet agencies charged with this mission, but it can be argued that their failure falls more into the general active malevolence of the previous administration than garden-variety stupidity, perhaps.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/22/AR2008112202213_pf.html

TMK, the Greenspan/Bernanke Put is essentially ZIRP. QE is actual monetization of the debt.

The problem going forward is running into the Liquidity Trap, where worthwhile, potentially productive borrowers are tapped out, leaving the extra liquidity to fall into speculators and other economic ne'er do wells.

We can helicopter-drop money, but unless it ends up in the hands of J6P, rents and housing values are NOT going to go up. We saw what speculation can do to energy: $4 gas was NOT good for J6P or the housing market, other than heightening the value of housing with a shorter commuting distance (but this is largely zero-sum since it is coming at the expense of housing further out).

Zephyr,

I'm not sure why you paraphrased everything I just said. I used the imprecise measure of generations because it shows much more dramatically the differences. Check your demographics again on the issue of oversupply of medium to large homes vs shortage of small homes. It's going to be a very big deal down the road.

Zephyr says

Based on current census data and forecasts, including immigration, the population will steadily grow during the next 30 years.

Forecasts by who? Last I checked we had flat population for the decade. Most of the inflow
coming from northeast while Californians are moving out into the SouthWest.
Only forecasts showing growth are from local governments and realtors associations.

Zephyr is correct. Births are at about 3.5 million a year, deaths are at 2.5 million a year, immigration is at about 1 million per year. So we will net about 2 million people per year.

Zephyr is also correct that the EVENTUAL replacement buyers for the current and future overhang of baby boomer housing are in the system or coming. I just strongly disagree that it will be a linear process. There will be large amounts of adjustments in the mix and pricing of housing before an equilibrium is established again. Mostly to the downside in the early and especially middle stages.

Here's a nice bar chart to show my original point.
http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html

It's off the 2000 census so the 35-49 bulge is now in the 45-59 area and in 10 years will be in the 55-69 range. The differences don't look all that dramatic until you lump them into 15 or 20 year bands instead of 5 year bands. Then the bulges really stick out.

Using popularly labeled "generations" is too crude. The first of the boomers will be retired while the last boomers are in their peak spending years. We will have totally different demand characteristics within one "generation" group. Thus it is misleading to look at the boomers as one group. It is far more important to know how many people are in each 5 year age band. This allows consistent comparisons of population profiles over time.

The key demographic relates to the cohorts who are followed by substantially smaller cohorts. The people who are now about 45 to 55 years old are critical because they are the peak of the bulge and are now in their peak spending years. So it is their retirement that will have the most meaningful affect on demand.

Household formation, household formation, household formation. With a net increase in population, its hard to avoid the inevitable, but we certainly can try....

Jobs, jobs, jobs.

Just making more mouths to feed isn't going to pay the rent. Though cousin Juan just back from Tegucigalpa actually does help.

AFAICT this decade was a total smoke & mirrors economy, with so many high-powered careers based in the FIRE sector, which, aside from incidental construction, doesn't produce one thin dime's worth of new wealth.

FWIW, I think the Fortresses are going to do OK this next decade -- simple supply & demand. Middle-class housing, though, I just don't see the upswing pressures, though if the dollar is devalued 50%, or mortgage rates fall to 2% then there could be some big-ass price rises.

Interestingly, there may be a link there. If the dollar devalues 50%, then maybe China & Japan will have more dollars to lend us -- it'd be play money to them at this point -- and they'd settle for those 2% returns. TBH, I have no idea what's going to happen this next decade. Too many moving parts, and this is bat country.

Jobs, jobs, jobs.
Just making more mouths to feed isn’t going to pay the rent.
Certainly not going to disagree with you there, and if these are Deflation Nation WalMart jobs, household formation goes nowhere fast. Interesting, here's where the jobs are:
Many of these workers have become dissatisfied with their compensation or advancement opportunities in the U.S. and perceive better opportunities back home or in other parts of the world... with the unemployment rate at 5.7% in Australia, Ms. Morand considers the career opportunities in her home country better. "Certainly compared to New York [the outlook] doesn't appear to be as critical," she says.

I think we lost sight of worth, and what merits a premium and is a luxury. And what is just plain necessity and only serves a facilitate propose. A home or a house that you buy to shelter your family, will never be worth more than what a market can pay for it. That market of course being the median income in that area can afford. There's no such thing as a fortress how ever. Because there are other factors besides it's a nice home on a nice plot of land. That can change based on finicky whims of how "Desirable locations" are defined. That can and will change periodically. I'm sure there was once a point in history when Detroit real estate had it's fortresses through out the town. But as long as the wealthy are willing to consider desire over value, because they can afford to pay 700K ++ for a house and the zeros on their last pay check says they can afford it, then it's really up to the rich Jones' to slug it out.

Also... I've been seeing that Landlords are getting so desperate for occupants in the LA area they are offering MONTH TO MONTH without needing to sign a long term lease... 6 months leases are becoming more and more common to draw in renters.

Gold is going to burst in early 2010, too much action from dollar bears and the dollar will get stronger.

Rents will continue to decrease and bring buying prices with them.

We're in the 6th inning, hopefully we can hold on without collapsing.

Tenouncetrout says

There’s no such thing as a fortress how ever.

I disagree. The Atherton to Los Gatos corridor (incl. Cupertino) is a Fortress. Pac Palisades & S Orange County. If & as society goes down the s----er then neighborhood safety will have its own price premium.

Atherton maybe, Los Gatos most certainly not. I live right next door and rent prices are still 60% lower than what I can buy for and the commute is still fairly bad.

Los Gatos will be one of the later towns to fall, but fall it will.

Cupertino is down and will continue.

CrazyMan says

Los Gatos will be one of the later towns to fall, but fall it will.

I can say Los Gatos isnt the fortress some people make it to be. There are foreclosures going on. Down the street a 300K pre-bubble hose, sold for nearly 4x more and went into foreclosure within 3 years. The big money came from stock options 10 years ago. But your not seeing the great IPO boom happening again, because much of the compensation is actually deferred restricted stock. Who is going to pony up that much cash today?

Troy says

neighborhood safety

Depends what you consider crime? Last we forget the psycho real estate investor who murdered a bar owner last year? I wont mention the rampant drug use in LG... that didn't seem to change over the several decades... from coke in the 80s to speed today.

most of the filth that left LG and most of SJ landed in Los Banos ... and they have created the same crap in Los Banos that made SJ a crappy place to live. Good news is, they are headed back over the hill. Bad news is, only the ones with jobs that are not professional breeders are going back. THe super-scum are staying put and living off of the tax-payers. Great system huh?

Home prices are still way out of line with wages. in 2000, in many areas, the median home price was about 2.5 times annual salary. Even in bubble markets where home prices have fallen significantly, that still is not the case. The govt cannot prop housing prices up forever so they have to fall more unless foolish Americans are so determined to own they'll do anything.

markw51 says

unless foolish Americans are so determined to own they’ll do anything.

they are. trust me, they are.

There many worthy opinions in this post.

My opinion is that housing has not bottomed and not likely to bottom in 2011. The only fortresses in this market are homes with little or no debt and sufficient income to cover costs. If you can sell your house today for a profit it is an asset if you cannot it is a liability. Jobs are critical to support housing. Thats why the housing market has capitulated in Detroit.

The US government and the FED continue to aggressively support housing through entities and actions like FHA, Fannie Mae and housing credits. Remember the saying "buy the rumor, sell the news." If someone is offering incentives to buy a widget, its not because that widget is in high demand.

They will continue along this course until they need to reduce liquidity to prevent rampant inflation.
Some one knows how long it can continue, not me. 2010 will be an interesting year.

markw51 says

Home prices are still way out of line with wages. in 2000, in many areas, the median home price was about 2.5 times annual salary.

Not around here (SF Bay Area). Prices were 4x incomes in 1997, then doubled by 2000. After 2000, its been rather tough with jobs/income. Salaries today are not that much off from 2000. We been rather flat, with job growth going outside the region.

Does Wells Fargo's move ( => http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125728972492326499.html) make the Alt-A, Option ARM problem less destructive? What if other banks follow through with the same policies?

asdfasdfish says

Does Wells Fargo’s move ( => http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125728972492326499.html) make the Alt-A, Option ARM problem less destructive? What if other banks follow through with the same policies?

It will certainly lower the height of the chart in the OP. Other banks may follow suit. The question however is how much of this debt was securitized. That debt is nearly impossible to restructure because each mortgage is partially owned by several investors. Getting them all to agree on new terms is a nightmare.

markw51 says

in 2000, in many areas, the median home price was about 2.5 times annual salary

In 2000, interest rates were pushing 8%, the FHA limit was, LOL:

http://www.fha-home-loans.com/access_income_limits_fha_loan.htm

income taxes were 10-15% higher, 5% down was the absolute minimum, and the gummint wasn't handing out $8000 to buy a house!

The chart shows some info. that we can deduce opinions about for supply of used homes. That's all. Doesn't include information about buyer demographics or future access to credit. We could have flat or declining prices even if there were zero resets coming.

100% right-on