RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

How Do We Track Housing?

***Cross-posted from my blog, Sense on Cents. Come by and visit!

housing-crisisAt the core of most, if not all, of our economic problems lies housing. I do not need to replay the tape of low rates, shoddy underwriting, and Wall Street securitizations that all played a dramatic role in creating a bubble the likes of which we have never seen and hopefully never will again. All that said, housing is an enormous market with a wide array of factors impacting it. How does one track it? Are we supposed to rely on our local brokers telling us things feel better? Should we ask contractors if they are bidding on jobs? Dare we rely on our local or national media outlets to provide their expertise and pandering? If we did, housing may have bottomed 14 different times in the last 10 months. In all seriousness, how can we track housing? Welcome to Sense on Cents.

There are two indexes that have developed over the last few years and are enormously respected by market participants. One index, the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indexes, is released on a monthly basis. This index tracks a variety of regions in the country but not every region. Still, all things considered, this index is widely watched as a reliable indicator of health in housing. The index is typically released toward the end of each month. The most recently released report was on February 24th, A Look at Case-Shiller Numbers, by Metro Area. In this report, all indications are that housing has yet to see any support.

Aside from the Case-Shiller Index, there is another index that tracks trends in housing and allows investors to reflect their opinions. This index, the ABX (Asset Backed Index), was created a few years ago by Wall Street to track trends in housing. Clearly given the emphasis on Obama’s housing, plans put forth by Secretary Geithner would have put some optimism in this index, right? Well, we are all aware of the enthusiasm put forth in Obama’s plan to support housing; however, no plan is a panacea and every plan has unintended consequences. Despite the best intentions in Washington, the market sees no bottom in housing.

The ABX is not traded on an exchange and thus easily tracked. Enter my friends at 12th Street Capital who shared with me a few days ago that the “ABX went out at its ALL TIME LOWs yesterday. The real money sellers continue to push it lower in conjunction with the stock market and other credit markets and clearly the street has no interest in supporting the current levels, hence unless you have some real money buyers come into the
market you could expect to see continued softening.”

There you have it. Both indexes that track housing are at all-time lows. Thus, while the stock market had a nice bounce the other day, before we get overly ebullient about the potential for stocks, we want to see if we are seeing any sort of support in these two indexes. For my money, these will be the first two indicators showing a turn in our economy and giving me confidence to invest in stocks.

LD

Oddly enough, the ABX market did not participate in the rally on Tuesday. In 2008 I would have said that the next day rally in ABX would almost be a certainty, however with continued uncertainty regarding government intervention on mortgages and MBS, it seems most longs are carefully picking their spot in the MBS market.

  • Ellen D

    Housing won’t get better until people have jobs. People won’t get jobs unless companies can get their bridge financing back.
    I say restoring company bridge financing and LOCs are core. How are any of these construction companies going to be able to work on the stimulus infrastructure jobs without a bank doing the interim financing? The government doesn’t pay up front and is a notably slow payer.

  • MBC

    Thanks LD, great post. I will never understand why people bought houses at 300.00 per square foot with no long term supply of water or decent infrastructure or proximity to jobs or etc., etc. Not that I don’t feel for some of these folks, but the value of mortar and bricks and boards is all you really should be investing your money in and a small percentage for location. Buying homes at those prices was just plain foolish.

    • http://www.senseoncents.com LD

      Agreed!!

    • lark

      I will never understand why people bought houses

      But do you understand why Realtors sold people houses?

      Do you understand why appraisers apprised houses?

      Why bankers offered mortgages?

      Greedy, dishonest, deceiving, no?

      CONNIVING?

  • Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter

    Uh, Larry d, perhaps you forgot the massive government intervention in the housing market, as represented by the CRA, Fannie and Freddie, in your list of what caused the housing bubble?

    Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

    Congress designed Fannie and Freddie to serve both their investors and the political class. Demanding that Fannie and Freddie do more to increase home ownership among poor people allowed Congress and the White House to subsidize low-income housing outside of the budget, at least in the short run. It was a political free lunch.

    The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) did the same thing with traditional banks. It encouraged banks to serve two masters — their bottom line and the so-called common good. First passed in 1977, the CRA was “strengthened” in 1995, causing an increase of 80% in the number of bank loans going to low- and moderate-income families.

    Fannie and Freddie were part of the CRA story, too. In 1997, Bear Stearns did the first securitization of CRA loans, a $384 million offering guaranteed by Freddie Mac. Over the next 10 months, Bear Stearns issued $1.9 billion of CRA mortgages backed by Fannie or Freddie. Between 2000 and 2002 Fannie Mae securitized $394 billion in CRA loans with $20 billion going to securitized mortgages.

    By pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country, politicians could push for increases in home ownership and urban development without having to commit budgetary dollars. Another political free lunch.

    Fannie and Freddie and the banks opposed these policy changes at first through both lobbying and intransigence. But when they found out that following these policies could be profitable — which they were as long as rising housing prices kept default rates unusually low — their complaints disappeared. Maybe they could serve two masters. They turned out to be wrong. And when Fannie and Freddie went into conservatorship, politicians found out that budgetary dollars were on the line after all.

    While Fannie and Freddie and the CRA were pushing up the demand for relatively low-priced property, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 increased the demand for higher valued property by expanding the availability and size of the capital-gains exclusion to $500,000 from $125,000. It also made it easier to exclude capital gains from rental property, further pushing up the demand for housing.

    The Fed did its part, too. In 2003, the federal-funds rate hit 40-year lows of 1.25%. That pushed the rates on adjustable loans to historic lows as well, helping to fuel the housing boom.

    The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and low interest rates — along with the regulatory push for more low-income homeowners — dramatically increased the demand for housing. Between 1997 and 2005, the average price of a house in the U.S. more than doubled. It wasn’t simply a speculative bubble. Much of the rise in housing prices was the result of public policies that increased the demand for housing. Without the surge in housing prices, the subprime market would have never taken off.

    Fannie and Freddie played a significant role in the explosion of subprime mortgages and subprime mortgage-backed securities. Without Fannie and Freddie’s implicit guarantee of government support (which turned out to be all too real), would the mortgage-backed securities market and the subprime part of it have expanded the way they did?

    Perhaps. But before we conclude that markets failed, we need a careful analysis of public policy’s role in creating this mess. Greedy investors obviously played a part, but investors have always been greedy, and some inevitably overreach and destroy themselves. Why did they take so many down with them this time?

    Part of the answer is a political class greedy to push home-ownership rates to historic highs — from 64% in 1994 to 69% in 2004. This was mostly the result of loans to low-income, higher-risk borrowers. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, abetted by Congress, trumpeted that rise as it occurred. The consequence? On top of putting the entire financial system at risk, the hidden cost has been hundreds of billions of dollars funneled into the housing market instead of more productive assets.

    Beware of trying to do good with other people’s money. Unfortunately, that strategy remains at the heart of the political process, and of proposed solutions to this crisis.

    Mr. Roberts is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a scholar at the Mercatus Center. His latest book is a novel on how markets work, “The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity” (Princeton University Press, 2008).

  • CG

    “ABX went out at its ALL TIME LOWs yesterday. The real money sellers continue to push it lower in conjunction with the stock market and other credit markets and clearly the street has no interest in supporting the current levels, hence unless you have some real money buyers come into the market you could expect to see continued softening.”

    Who would represent “real money buyers” and if the ABX is easily tracked can you steer me to some historic references, especially if you know whether it is tracked by area or market. Are the real money sellers hoping to further manipulate the housing market? I am fascinated to learn more about it. My only reference to the direction of housing in terms of overall health comes from discussions with my family, builders in greater Los Angeles area, and real estate expert friends in San Francisco area market, and then looking at my own area as I’ve followed it closely over the past 12 years, the Seattle area. Thanks LD, for the additional insight, because I still feel like these are not a complete picture, at least with my limited comprehension of all the factors.

    • http://www.senseoncents.com LD

      Real money buyers and sellers are money managers, investment advisors, mutual funds, insurance companies, pension funds, state funds, et al. Believe me this market is way too deep to manipulate. All of hteses entities use this ABX (an index that tarcks different origination periods for sub-prime mortgages) to express their opinion and take a position in it.

      The ABX is traded only at the institutional level and is not traded on an exchange so it is tough to track. I will get regular color from my friends at 12th Street Capital and share it.

      The Case-Shiller is published monthly and is broken into different geographic zones. You can google that and track it by zone.

  • CG

    LD, My comment a few moments ago was filtered, if you are able to retrieve it, I have a few questions. Thanks.

  • Linda C.

    The rebound in the stock market is because of??? People looking for bargains? Maddoff plead guilty, Something Obama said? Something Obama didn’t say?

    The jobs report was dismal. Retail sales fell, but not as much as expected. ( I suppose that is a good thing in a twisted sort of way). More foreclosures on the horizon. Some banks returned the bailout money. So does that mean that the banks never needed it or maybe they didn’t like some accountability for receiving it? Germany is forecasting a 7 percent contraction. All in all, it is still pretty bad news.

    Really until they get the housing plan implemented we aren’t going to know if it will have any impact. It isn’t going to help those who have lost incredible value in their house. As the housing values plummet, less will be helped.

    • Ferd Berfle

      As the housing values plummet, less will be helped.

      Except for those who bought way above their means. They are the ones who will get to keep what rightfully should never have been theirs in the first place while the rest of us who did live within our means are essentially told, “they bought it and you’ll pay for it”. But what the hell, those McMansions they bought will be rubble in about 30 years because they are cheap crap–right about the time they (with help from the rest of us) finish payments. My place, on the other hand, is 109 years old, built like a Sherman tank, and will outlast me and my children. Yep, I will get the last laugh on this one.

      • Linda C.

        If the value of the house drops below a certain percentage of the mortgage, then those McMansion owners won’t be helped either.

        A 109 year old house? bet you can’t even drive a nail into the wood now.

        • Baba Rum Raisin

          I used to build VERY good, quality homes in Florida, as my family did before me.

          Problem: Nobody Wants to Pay for Quality Work.

          The Buyers (particularly the under-35 crowd) could care less about Quality. They just want the latest Do-Dah crap in the kitchen and chickenshit cove mouldings in the living room.

          Deciding that working 85-90 hours per week for less than a first-year Dentist makes, I said, “Screw It!” after 18 of my years and three generations before me and went to work for the government.

          And Quality work means: I have NEVER built a home using Drywall…always lath and plaster.

          Do you know the difference?

  • FrenchNail

    I have been in Real Estate all my life. It’s in my blood. I am coming from a long line of Real Estate Owners/developpers.

    I do not look at indexes. I look at the average family budgets. Real estate in any primary residense markets is directly dependant on the family income. PERIOD.

    Whatever the average family income is in a particular market, you take around 25-28% of that and that gives you the mortgage paiment they spend. Given the average 30-year fixed rate at the moment, you have the price of the average house in the market.

    Any deviation from those numbers is speculation, risky and unsustainable.

    Considering the amount of debt the average American family is now having and accumulating (thanks to the various spending bills Obama’s administration is voting), considering the shrinking of their income and considering the anticipated inflation soon to kick in, there is no way IMO the value of the Real Estate can improve for a long long time.

    As matter of fact, I rather think if you accept the Stock Market as an advance indicator of future values, that the real estate market has still some way to drop to catch up with 1997 values shown on Wall Street on Monday.

    • http://www.senseoncents.com LD

      Very valuable color. Much appreciated!! Thanks for sharing.

  • FrenchNail

    Am I in moderation?

    • FrenchNail

      Never mind…

  • CG

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29666962/ another Attorney withdraws from Treasury job

  • TeakwoodKite

    Foreclosure Filings in U.S. Jumped 30% in February WSJ

    The U.S. housing crisis is deepening as President Barack Obama attempts a $275 billion rescue to help borrowers with sinking home values or unaffordable loans. Declining prices sapped $2.4 trillion in value from the nation’s residential market last year, according to First American CoreLogic. A measure of prices in 20 U.S. cities has fallen every month since January 2007, the S&P/Case Shiller index shows.
    ~snip~
    Some of the top U.S. lenders own as many as 700,000 foreclosed homes they have yet to offer for sale, said Rick Sharga, executive vice president for marketing for RealtyTrac

    Is any wonder that the future is bleak with 5.3 million people out with 654,000 people applting for un-enjoyment last week.

    AIG is not talking. Is it worth the 180 billion? Bernanke and Geithner will not name the “counter parties” as to where it went. But my guess are hedge funds. The WSJ is saying that foriegn banks are the ones that are getting the largese, but if the European market is worse than ours and that is where the $$$ is going…isn’t that a financial rabbit hole?

    HA! BO just said he is “a glutten for punishment” on the local news. He ain’t seen nothing yet.