patrick.net

simchaland says

lying about it or killing thousands of our own young people (to say nothing of innocent bystanders in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) in two needless wars based on false premises while torturing others and eliminating certain elements of the Bill of Rights.

Who are you referring to on this? Bush, Obama or both? Last I checked, Obama has expanded this "needless" war in Afghanistan, has extended the Patriot Act, and continues the policy of "rendition" whereby suspected terrorists are removed, by the CIA, to countries that have no problem with applying torture. Also, I used to hear an awful lot from the left about the evils of Halliburton and all of their conflicted war contracts. Funny thing: Obama has kept intact all of Halliburton’s contracts. Is this the "change" you voted for?

^ Well, having your own backyard is a form of wealth, too. We spend the bulk of our time on this planet at home so it only makes sense that we invest so much money into this sector -- the physical wealth of the structure, ground improvements, and furniture, plus the cost of the land itself.

I think people having private gardens and backyards is great, but if we taxed site value more and the improvements not at all I think we'd end up with a better infill development pattern.

maxweber says

Most places in the USA had NO RE BUBBLE

This is true, but only because most of the US is rather rural.

Since the inflationary elements 2002-2006 were available everywhere -- the Bush tax cuts, reduction in "red tape" and federal oversight of lenders, interest rates dropping 2001-2002 and being held there 2003-2004, the rising fever of flippers during the peak bubble years of 2005-2006 with the availability of any kind of loan to anyone.

Though it is fair to say that the bubble activity was concentrated on the coasts + NV/UT.

This post:

http://www.roubini.com/us-monitor/258023/factors_in_local_house_price_declines

echoes my thinking rather closely. All real estate is local, and builders and flippers were attracted to growing economies, not the backwater economies of flyover country RFD.

Housing purchases are consumption by the buyer unless it is rented out to someone else to consume.

Then it's consumption with a thin coating of rentierism applied ; )

Consumption of the housing good is a VERY slow process. My mom's house built in the early 80s is still holding together, as is my current apartment built in the late 80s. The actual greenery of both these properties has dramatically improved over this time, of course, resulting in a much nicer living environment than when first built.

So it's kinda hard identifying the "consumption" going on here, really. Actual physical depreciation on my apartment is probably $200/mo or so, yet I pay 8X that in rent.

So the wealth output -- the housing good -- of well-built housing is pretty damn favorable relative to the capital investment of the fixed improvement.

When land is only used for placing owner-occupied housing, well…its pretty much taken out of further productive use

Thing is, in a service-dominant economy there really isn't much of a land shortage, thanks to the mobility provided by the internal combustion engine.

SFHs in the aggregate result in sprawl, increasing the need for investment in transit infrastructure, lengthening travel times, but having lived in Tokyo and California I can say I prefer living in California's density, or lack thereof.

Untaxing capital improvements and taxing actual land usage more would encourage infill redevelopment and more efficient use of the land we have.

But with housing, we just have more statues in the park

Certainly the new neighborhoods in Los Banos are wasted investment activity, a dead loss economically. But wealth, primarily, is that which satisfies human needs and wants, and there's nothing quite like popping out on one's nice back patio to make a BBQ dinner on a hot summer evening. Wealth is where you find it.

shrekgrinch says

Troy. Are you familiar with Henry George

LOL, you must be new here : )

Henry George's definition of wealth in Progress & Poverty first really got me thinking about what it really is:

"Thus wealth, as alone the term can be used in political economy, consists of natural products that have been secured, moved, combined, separated, or in other ways modified by human exertion, so as to fit them for the gratification of human desires. It is, in other words, labor impressed upon matter in such a way as to store up, as the beat of the sun is stored up in coal, the power of human labor to minister to human desires. Wealth is not the sole object of labor, for labor is also expended in ministering directly to desire; but it is the object and result of what we call productive labor -- that is, labor which gives value to material things. Nothing which nature supplies to man without his labor is wealth, nor yet does the expenditure of labor result in wealth unless there is a tangible product which has and retains the power of ministering to desire."

(I disagree though that stuff in the state of nature can't be "wealth". I think a clean, sandy beach is a form of capital wealth, as is the world-class anchorage of the SF Bay itself, ie. George is thinking too much about nonrenewable mineral wealth here)

To break this out, I like to think of goods as "service providers", the service being utility of satisfying human wants and needs.

So the housing good provides the services of shelter, privacy, secure storage space for our stuff, etc.

A car is a durable good that provides the service of transportation (and social status signalling).

This allows for the unspecified nature of the source of services -- goods can substitute for human labor, eg. using a car instead of a sedan chair, or an electric fan instead of paying a dude with a big feather fan like they did in Egypt, a washing machine instead of hiring a lady to beat our clothes clean down by the creek.

"Wealth" is simply the collection of services we have access to, the more we have, the wealthier we are. Poverty is the degree of unsatisfied want of utility in our lives.

At its most basic, wealth is simply the state of being well.

But [housing land] is still being used purely for consumption, not further production

yeah, well, so much land is of marginal utility and we're kinda water-bound anyway as far as ag goes. As a good capitalist I believe in capital formation and preservation, and I think the present system has actively evolved to be wasteful and capital-draining, ie a 20hr work-week would be enough wealth production to support a full life for all if we closed off the losses to parasitical rentierism that exist in many corners of the economy.

Really, after 150+ years of residence here, you'd think most of us would have our houses paid off by now . . .

I'm a big fan of following the "wealth creation" of an economy, for I do believe that any economy, local or national, lives or dies by its net wealth creation. Housing may be "consumption" of land, but wise investment in housing wealth represents little loss of net physical wealth in the economy.

(cut down trees to make lumber is a loss of wealth, but a new house wisely situated offers much more utility once constructed)

So, you still are of the opinion that gold bubbles in the next 12 months?

Are you going to place an options bet on that one? A 1K Options bet would get your money back from the last one!

Gold is going up, but mostly because the USD is going up (which you pointed out), but the euro can't keep dropping like that, at which point, the only way for gold to go up is if we see it go up in terms of USD.

From the european perspective, it's the USD that is going up, not gold. Gold is only tagging along. For a bubble, gold will need to go up on it's own, without being tied to the euro.

"We will meet our obligations both as a responsible company and also as a necessary step to rebuilding trust in BP as a long term member of the business communities in the US and around the world," said BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg. "This is in the interest of all our stakeholders."

They're going to pay a lot, but the company does earn $16B per year so it's got REALLY deep pockets and future cash coming out of its ass. Assuming they don't BK the current equity (highly unlikely unless the spill totally wipes out the region) they'll be back.

But make no mistake, $16 billion / 500,000 claimants is only $32,000 per case. Company could be earnings-impaired for a good long time.

They are talking about launching the biggest class action lawsuit ever against them. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole.

There was a good article (maybe on here?) about what they are limited to. They most likely won't be limited to the 75M. Class action lawsuits will likely end up like the exxon lawsuits, where they're still going on, 20 years later. They won't settle, they'll be in court forever.

So it comes down to what they owe now, what they're going to pay to clean things up, and how bad is it going to get? We know there is oil, but where is it going to end up? And will it dissipate/spread itself thinly around the world and/or certain areas in the ocean. If they're lucky it will end up hidden somewhere people aren't looking.

I'm sort of assuming they're going to be hurt earnings wise for awhile. There isn't going to be any good news coming out for a long time, it's going to be neutral to really really bad. If they stop the oil, that isn't "good" news, that's just neutral. They still have an enormous amount to clean up. I've been looking at the stock as well, but I think it's going to fall more before it goes up. There is still too much bad news that hasn't been released, while it shouldn't bankrupt them, it will make investors nervous.

More bad news for Obama: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

On the other hand: BP’s dividend payment accounted for about £1 of every £8 handed out by British companies last year, according to FairPensions, a London-based charity.

"Since liability is limited to 75MM and their income stream is completely intact,"

I think certain lawmakers are working hard to push that cap more than 100X to 10B.

There is so much out there about BP as an investment that people have done homework on that you should review them instead of asking here. Seeking Alpha always have great synopsis of pros and cons commentary.

Your main question is whether the market is mispricing BP and if so what is the margin of safety. Uncertainty creates problems and opportunity.

For me, it's too early to tell how much all this will cost BP. Estimates are anywhere from 5B to 40B. Future cash flow will be hit pretty bad too as their capital investment and downsteram business and will incur significant rise in expenses will be effected. Based on my experience, stock price will go way up the day the CEO is canned.

BP will pay dearly. Exxon got a pass because of three reasons:

1. They're "American"
2. It was mostly animals affected, not people's vacation spots and businesses
3. Friendlier administration.

Now, there's no chance in hell that they'll pay anything close to the actual damage that they've caused (they'd go bankrupt if they did).

If I were a betting man, I'd put the total amount that they're on the hook for in the $5-10 billion range, spread out over 5 years.

The thing about trying to time the market, or worse yet an individual stock, is that there are a lot of people who do this for a living, 24x7, and they have access to information a lot quicker than you. They also have trading programs that can react a lot quicker than you can.

It's like trying to win a swimming race against sharks. The best way to win is not to play.

Ok, here is a good article on their liabilities, and the "75 million" number.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/04/news/companies/bp_legal.fortune/index.htm

"there are several mammoth exceptions. To begin with, the limitation does not apply to any of BP's liability for state and federal cleanup costs, for which BP (BP) is 100% responsible."

They will be liable for a lot of cleanup and a lot of payouts, especially if that oil turns up on beaches and hurts tourism and/or makes anyone sick. The end result, is they make a huge amount of money. This will hurt them for 3-4 years maybe, but in then end they'll come out ok.

I read a paper written for the Canadian Government by a scientist on the Valdez spill (I requested a copy from him, I knew he did this work and knew him so it was easy) and after reading it, he basically said it was a spill, there are spills far larger around the world every year, this one got media attention and was close to cities so it was easy to drum up media hype. This BP spill is a massive disaster because of the sheer number of humans that will be impacted by it in the near future, but it will get cleaned up. Nothing will ever be the same though, it's like cleaning up a dirty park. You get everything you can, but there are always a few cigarette buts, small wrappers and pieces of plastic half buried in the ground.

Where are you looking at buying?

Does anyone STILL think we’re in a bear market knowing that the market would have to crash 18% JUST to get back to FLAT from 2009?

that's not how annualized rates work, btw. Show me a nabe, and we'll talk : )

"Interest rates on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages fell this week to their lowest level this year and were just barely above their all-time low, Freddie Mac reported Thursday.

But demand for loans to purchase houses remains sluggish more than a month after the end of a federal program to stimulate the economy through tax credits for home buyers."

Here's a house I'm familiar with. It's about as far north as you'd want to go in San Leandro, perhaps too far, but it'd make a good rental.

(edit: it's not on the market now, but it will be, prolly)

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/572-Kenilworth-Ave-San-Leandro-CA-94577/24876361_zpid/

That's my friend who timed the peak perfectly, btw. When he told me he was selling, I said, "Sell fast!".

Here's a pretty good median listing in Pleasant Hill:

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Pleasant-Hill/1942-Carolyn-Dr-94523/home/1798979

and

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1942-Carolyn-Dr-Pleasant-Hill-CA-94523/18390218_zpid/

On the market for $485K, which looks to me to be maybe $25K high if zillow's graph of the Pleasant Hill median is correct -- the median has gone from $444K to $460K since July, an annual 3.6% rise. Back out the $8000 credit and you get a 1.8% rise over the TTM.

Rates have fallen 20bps or 4% over these TTM, too.

I think Patrick has a free trial of his bargain hunter service. Concord has a pretty good balance of rent/price ratio as well as decent people. If it's all about the yield, it'll be the slum areas of Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo and Stockton.

Personally, I think Hercules is pretty good.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Hercules/21-Mission-Spgs-94547/home/1971663

3/2.5 1570 SQ FT built 1990. HOA 160, Pool and Private Playfround. Rent 2100 - 2200. price less than 250K. You'll have absolutely no problem renting this for 2,100. Section 8 pays 2,400 if you want to go that route. presuming 30% down

principle : 200
Interest : 700
tax: : 260
Insurance?HOA : 250

Total 1,410
Min Rent 2,100

Free Cash Flow 690
deferred cash flow 200

interest from 75K down payment -300
Cash flow 590
margin of safety: 590/2100 = 28%
investment: 78K 75K down and 3K fee
Return: 10680
Allowance: 3300 (1.5X monthly rent
Net return 7380
ROI 9.46%
annual Depr 7,500
tax: 90% deferred

Dead cat bounce, look out below.

dude .. just because the houses that are selling cost more than the subprime hispanic owned junk that has been going back to the bank thus far, does not mean the market is doing anything ... nothing .. at all ... it is just going down super slow while the last of the stupid people with access to free money are flushed out.

everyone agrees that it is much better to pay less for a home with more expensive money. and so, we shall wait.

There's a handy barrier that is only breached by Hwy 1, Soquel Ave, and the bridge over the harbor.

When I lived there, I stayed on my side of the wall at night.

Is it possible that California is becoming a magnet for the new aristocracy?

And what will these new Aristocracy do rest of their days.

Is Santa Cruz still the scariest town on earth? Are there still vampires?

Well its also known for the place where if you look at a woman walking down the street
in a certain way, it called rape. Dont need any Lost Boys Vampires to scare you.

Speaking of "bull markets" before we hit a meaningful fib retrace on the bounce is premature, not to mention mortgage applications are down 35% from four weeks ago so there is no volume confirmation on this "bull move".

If your "bull market" was driven by the rate movement and the $8000 tax credit . . . we're gonna need some more juice right about now. The Senate failing to pass unemployment extension next week ain't going to be it.

Is it possible that California is becoming a magnet for the new aristocracy?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the same kind of mentality which caused the market to crash, in the first place. While mentality like this is still pervasive, the long-term moving averages for the RE market will continue to point south.

There’s still an ocean of cash out there. Real Estate bubbles in China and Australia are about to burst.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The implosion of RE bubbles elsewhere does not free up any cash. On the contrary, it destroys wealth, because very few are able to get out at the top, and the capital is trapped. The bubble makes sure this happens by drying up liquidity (sales) long before prices start moving southbound.

you use a moving average longer than 1 year? Why?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Stock market bull markets typically last about 4-5 years, followed by a 1.5 year bear markets (a bear market usually lasts about 30% of the bull market). That's why we use a 1 year long-term moving average for a stock market. RE bull markets typically last about 16-17 years, so the right moving average to use for the RE market is 4 years. The last bull market we had lasted 30 years - the early 1990's was just a correction, hardly a bear market, at all. The one we are having now, is a real bear market (more than 20% national decline), which will last for, at least, 10 years. If you look at the 4 year moving average of prices, you will see that it is just now beginning to fall.

There are just as many people getting out at the top of a bubble as there are people getting in. There were just as many winners selling in 2006 as there were losers buying. IT’S NOT CORRECT that a real estate bubble destroys wealth
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nothing destroys wealth, like the implosion of the bubble. This is because all those people who sold at the top, just got back in by buying again. Very few people actually went to renting after they sold (among all of my friends, I am the only one who actually did this, but many people sold, just to get into an even more expensive house). The reason why wealth is lost, is because, it never actually existed in the first place. The only real wealth which cannot be lost, is the wealth created by "real" labor, not from speculation - that's the true nature of bubbles. People will learn this hard truth eventually, and that's when we will see the true bottom. As long as there are still "suckers" like you left, the bottom will be ephemeral.

Prices are down 30% from the peak, across the country, while home ownership rate is only down 2%, so we had more than 30% loss of wealth in RE. Now, where did that money go. There isn't a single market (with the exception of gold, which is a very small market), which enjoyed a 30% increase during this period. On the contrary, most other markets went down too. So most of this money just disappeared into thin air. It disappeared just as easily as it was fabricated out of thin air during the RE bubble runup.

I was just wondering what would happen if the 30 year loan is either severely diminished or if it were to go away entirely, like Argentina. If a country defaults, that could happen. And if people don't believe that they will be paid back over the course of a 30 year time period, we could see 15 year with balloon payments, etc. That would severly drop house prices.

dunnross says

Is it possible that California is becoming a magnet for the new aristocracy?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sure is. Its no wonder the old aristocracy from Madison Avenue are parking into Google positions while others from the East Coast are taking over other major Silicon Valley companies as CEOs and VP. Yet none have any tech/engineering experience.
We are screwed!

Anyone with a money market account is buying government bonds.

Just to clarify, that would technically be referred to as a money market fund, rather than your plain vanilla money market account, the latter being a safer place to park your money.

Government bonds(...)cannot be defaulted or bankrupted on. Therefore a federal bond represents the guaranteed delivery of real money although they aren’t money.

FWIW, there was an effective default (repudiation) on Treasury bonds in '33.

http://www.aei.org/article/29262

Most of the $3 trillion added to the bond market was through FED printing - it is the FED buying gov-t bonds, not people. The FED printing money is not adding to the wealth of this country, because it simply dilutes the money which is already there. Like I said - most people, like you, seem to have this preconceived notion that you can generate wealth out of thin air - only hard work generates wealth. Everything else is fleeting.

EVERY PENNY used to inflate the real estate bubble still exists
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is absolutely true, because the initial money used to inflate the bubble was "real", but there was very little of that money. Everything else was ephemeral. When the bubble deflates completely (about 10 years from now), only the "real" money will be left, and all the ephemeral money will be gone.

First of all, the FED has about $9T of off-balance sheet transactions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcZH9G8S9iQ

Second, I didn't say wealth could not be created out of thin air. I said, only ephemeral wealth could be created out of thin air, and just as quickly disappear.

Third, I agree that the financial transactions are a zero sum game (keyword is transactions), but
the 80% of the wealth in RE was not related to transactions. It was the ephemeral wealth, which people agreed upon, just like your $100 bottle of water, which is really only worth $1. The 20% real wealth which is in RE, will always stay in RE, because prices will only fall 80%, not 100%.

GDP is not wealth, it is the sum of all monetary transactions:

http://www.akxqq.com/archives/76

During the same 12 months, gold is up 100%, which means RE is down by about 40% against gold currency, which, in the environment of FED printing, is the only real currency which is the true judge of RE progress.

Besides, the only reason why we had this dead-cat bounce in RE was because FED has just pumped huge amounts of money and 10,000 programs to prop up the prices. As soon as FED removed support, sales are already down 35%.

Expect much much lower prices up ahead.

dunnross says

Most of the $3 trillion added to the bond market was through FED printing - it is the FED buying gov-t bonds, not people.

Actually the fed is printing money, loaning it to the banks at .25% then the banks are loaning it to the federal government via treasuries at 3.5%. It's great to be the king.

@Nomo,
who controls the printing presses, if not The Fed? Keep it simple for me please.

Nomograph, ever heard of QE? That's FED's euphemism for printing money.

Bap33 says

who controls the printing presses, if not The Fed? Keep it simple for me please.

Money is not "printed" by the Fed, it is printed by the Treasury.

The Fed can and does create new money by crediting the Treasury's accounts. When it does this it takes a fresh T-note in exchange. In theory it can sterilize this money creation by selling this Treasury Note, which will take money out of the economy.

The Fed has all kinds of ways of getting liquidity -- money -- into the system, but dollars do not appear out of nowhere, there is always an exchange of assets.

QE is basically monetizing existing debt. Most of the QE was buying illiquid but government-guaranteed assets which juiced the money supply with new money into the system, much of it just parked in treasury issues for the safe yield.

I am far, far from an expert in this area so this is just my general understanding.

ok .. I follow thus far .... so, who tells the treasury to start printing and how much to print?

dollars do not appear out of nowhere, there is always an exchange of assets. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Of course they do. The T-bills which they get from the Treasury are also freshly printed.
Every time you go to the bank and get a mortgage, that's money created out of nowhere.