patrick.net

Casey S. mentioned to me in his travels that he'd heard the bank actually owned your house when you mortgaged in Oz -- I said I think not, a mortgage is a mortgage wherever you are, it's just one of those offhand remarks or misconceptions people have... 'Shared equity schemes' with the banks, on the other hand, are one of the proposals on the table akin to 50 year mortgages and other delightful solutions the banks have come up with to help you into home ownership after offering easy credit for the past few years thus triggering the housing boom and a record foreclosure rate... So effectively the bank might end up owning a fair chunk of your house and you're really just renting the property from the bank for the rest of your life -- oh well, can't help markets...

I wasn’t referring to Marin exclusively. Rents are going up on the Peninsula, in the City, and South Bay too.

Interesting that rents appear to be going up, even in a time of apparent over-supply of rental housing. This tends to predicate away from the 'supply-demand' model of pricing, to the 'landlord desperation' and price-fixing model that I suspect is closer to the reality, much like in the owner-occupier real estate market. And I would endorse the cluster effect mentioned earlier in the micro textbook as outlined below...

Rents started to creep up here a few months ago, and I fought a 25% (35% over 12 months) increase in my last place through a court Tribunal process, engaging a barrister and a solicitor in the end -- more on this exciting process later if you want to find out how the system protects your tenancy rights. The state-based REIs (peak bodies for LLs and REAs) sent out notices to all their members managing properties encouraging them to push up rents as 'vacancies are historically low' -- around 1.7%, apparently. I'm not sure I even believe the reported vacancy statistic -- I think it's more likely we are seeing too many recent property investors being burnt as the market turns -- the expected capital gains aren't there, so in desperation they have to up rents -- and the RE agents who conned them into buying at the top of the market are only too willing to assist in achieving it to save face and gain even more revenues in management fees. So we see booming housing prices followed by a bust -- and as the bust occurs, rents ineluctably increase.

Randy H says:

Actually, the Fed doesn’t calculate home equity ownership at all, nor does home equity ownership count directly in the US GDP figures, in contrast with methods used in places like the UK. The Fed uses an inputed rent formula, which you can look up on the web, that is not quite so simple as you suggest.

Visit www.federalreserve.com and look at the Z1 report, balance sheet section. %equity is defined in the B.100 table as: (market_value - debt) / market_value. There is nothing about imputed rents.

The Fed does not calculate market_value of residential real-estate, but either the BEA or Census Bureau does.

Imputed rents are discussed by the Fed Governor at every single meeting.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/HH/2006/july/testimony.htm

I turn now to the inflation situation. As I noted, inflation has been higher than we expected at the time of our last report. Much of the upward pressure on overall inflation this year has been due to increases in the prices of energy and other commodities and, in particular, to the higher prices of products derived from crude oil. Gasoline prices have increased notably as a result of the rise in petroleum prices as well as factors specific to the market for ethanol. The pickup in inflation so far this year has also been reflected in the prices of a range of non-energy goods and services, as strengthening demand may have given firms more ability to pass energy and other costs through to consumers. In addition, increases in residential rents, as well as in the imputed rent on owner-occupied homes, have recently contributed to higher core inflation.

zeke,

Get with the program. We discussed that article already.

Inflation is up here on a range of fronts also - and I believe the Treasurer and Bureau of Statistics find ways to under-report true inflation, by pricing out so-called 'volatile' things like fuel, and various foodstuffs, and possibly by just plain-out cheating the figures or modifying measures. However, I believe real inflation is 8-9% p.a. as the American shadow govt statistics website www.shadowstats.com indicates. Ditto for real unemployment and underemployment. GDP figures and the notion of 'economic growth' are just misused and abused to falsely report a 'successful' economy.

Some pensioners here kept receipts for a number of years and basically proved 8% inflation per year for the past 2 years on their own 'basket of goods'.

The reality here is that people are not sharing equally in the wealth of the commodities boom either, a few people at the top are keeping all the profits and bidding expensive RE up even higher as one outlet, while wage workers are forced to take 2-3% wage increases every year and can barely make ends meet -- it's for this reason that people don't believe the good news stories, and John Howard is currently on the ropes in the polls coming into the next election.

Randy H said:

Imputed rents are discussed by the Fed Governor at every single meeting.

Whether or not they are discussed by the Fed, imputed rents are NOT how the Fed calculates % equity and the Fed DOES calculate % equity. Go to www.federalreserve.gov and look at the Z1 report, specifically the b.100 balance sheet table. There you will see the %equity figure and also footnotes explaining how it is calculated, and the calculation is just as I explained above.

Imputed rents are used in a number of contexts, such as the national income accounts at the BEA and also to estimate CPI inflation, which is done by the BLS. Obviously, the Fed uses this information computed by other federal agencies. But neither the Fed nor anyone else can use imputed rents to calculate %equity. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The Z1 %equity figures is the source for the calculatedrisk graph of %equity dropping over the years. An even more shocking chart of %equity can be made by assuming market values of residential real-estate gradually return to the trend line of the last 30 years. The result is %equity dropping down to about 30%, depending on how fast the return to the trend line occurs. Given that many homeowners have 100% equity (no debt), this implies that many or most homeowners would have essentially no equity in the event of such a return to the trend line. More likely, there will be a wave of bankruptcies combined with a consumer savings spree, to bring the %equity back up to near 50%. That bodes very ill for the future of a consumer-based economy, unless the Federal government runs deficities the likes of which we have never seen before.

NIA are the principles and measures by which GDP is computed. Refer to Mankiw et. al. for definitions.

But more to the point, I let this debate stand as yet another example of how the rational perspective that housing is in a price bubble so often becomes a competition of "who can be more doom and gloom".

I entered into this because it was uttered above that "it's simple microeconomics 101". OK, now we're arguing about what constitutes aggregate GDP within the framework of national income accounts, which is neither simple nor is it microeconoimcs.

Just because there's about 20% more equity owned by home-owners than the scarier bear blogs claim doesn't mean that house prices won't correct. Similarly, just because rents are starting to rise healthily in some markets doesn't mean that house prices won't correct.

Over a year ago I was having the same kind of argument about house-price stickiness. I seem to recall a particular blog bully named "Allah" who authoritatively proclaimed that there could not ever be any house price stickiness, and anyone who thought otherwise must be a 'sheeple'. When I disagreed he called me a Realtor. Hey Allah, is it not-sticky yet?

To point: Foreclosure does not equal Bankruptcy. You realize that nearly all states have laws that protect non-house assets from foreclosure action, right? A wave of foreclosures would suck. It will hurt lots of consumers. It will destroy creditworthiness. It may even cause a recession.

Just not the end of the US consumer economy. Despite what Peter Schiff may say. He's entertaining though. Kind of the Ed Yourdon of finance.

Over a year ago I was having the same kind of argument about house-price stickiness. I seem to recall a particular blog bully named “Allah” who authoritatively proclaimed that there could not ever be any house price stickiness, and anyone who thought otherwise must be a ’sheeple’. When I disagreed he called me a Realtor. Hey Allah, is it not-sticky yet?

No Randy; I am not a blog bully; it's just that you are not above me.

....and yes, I believe in your own mind I proclaimed that "there could not ever be any house price stickiness and anyone who thought otherwise must be a sheeple."

However, in reality as anyone knows how to read can see if they search out what I wrote that I said at first there will be stickiness (just like there is in a normal housing market cycle downturn) and then there will be no stickiness (like I expect to be in an unprecedented abnormal housing market downturn such as this one) and from what I am observing in many places, it appears to be exactly what I said it would be.

...but thank you for being man enough to make a post on a forum that I regularly visit so I am able to defend myself.