January 17, 2010

A Hangover Caused By Too Much Money

A report from the Sunday Telegraph. “Australian families are being priced out of the property market by record numbers of highly paid skilled workers arriving from overseas. Research by The Sunday Telegraph has revealed for the first time how skilled immigrants - predominantly from Britain, India and China - are forcing house prices to some of the highest levels in the world when compared with average incomes. The median Australian property now costs 5.5 times the average household income, and about eight times income in Sydney. That compares with a ratio of 2.5 times household income in the US and five times income in Britain.”

“Property prices in the US and Britain have collapsed, but neither country approached Australia’s peak of six times income even before their markets crashed. Mark Taylor arrived from Britain on a skilled visa in 2003. The engineer-turned-management consultant…soon became obsessed with buying property. He now owns four houses around the country and is scouting for a property in Sydney. ‘The tax breaks are just fantastic,’ the 37-year-old from Maroubra said. ‘You can offset losses on rental income against your tax, which you can’t do in Britain, and that makes it such an attractive market.’”

“‘Sydney is set to be the best-performing city in the country this year, so I’m looking to buy in the north-west, maybe at Ryde, or somewhere in the inner west. There is such a shortage of supply, I think prices will shoot up this year and I want to take advantage,’ he said.”

“Other economists say the shortage of housing supply is only partly to blame. ‘The fact there is a shortage of property doesn’t necessarily mean prices have to keep rising,’ Steve Keen, professor of economics at the University of NSW, said. ‘There was still a shortage of property in the UK when its housing prices crashed.’”

The New Zealand Herald. “Leading executives in commercial property agencies remain guardedly upbeat about investment and leasing opportunities in several sectors of the market for this coming year while warning about the ongoing impact of restricted credit and high vacancy rates. Chris Bayley, general manager, commercial and industrial, for Bayleys Real Estate, says ‘It is likely the current insatiable demand for retail property, underpinned by a strong local Asian component to the market, will continue unabated in 2010, particularly as the economy picks up again.’”

“Mark Synnott, managing director of Colliers International…says land will never be cheaper and neither will construction costs.”

The Dargaville News. “A leading economist believes New Zealand has an over-abundance of land and says prices will have to come down in the near future. ANZ chief economist Cameron Bagrie warned ‘prices are going to have to adjust and this will be the story of 2010.’”

“Bagrie says there is an over-abundance of land and prices are over inflated. Currently the value of properties was concentrated in the land and there is no shortage of it in most regions, except for the big centres like Auckland, he said. Bagrie pointed out Northland as an example of somewhere that could be hard hit given ‘there is a real surplus in that region.’ ‘If you look at house prices compared to incomes in New Zealand, I would suggest they are overvalued.’”

“Massey University Lecturer Bob Hargreaves says the reason why property prices haven’t come down that much comes down two key factors. ‘It’s a psychological thing, people that brought their properties at the height of the property boom don’t really want to sell at a loss, so you’ve got people just sitting there holding onto their properties.’”

From Viet Nam News. “Foreign investors will start to shift investment from HCM City to Ha Noi this year, according to Marc Townsend, managing director of Property services and consulting firm CB Richard Ellis Viet Nam Co. He said foreign investors, as well as the Government, had been active in the market. ‘Investors from Malaysia and Singapore eye the city as a promising market,’ he said.”

“Townsend said demand for tenement apartments would increase because the cost of a villa was beyond most Vietnamese people’s budget. CBRE also said that more Vietnamese were looking for second homes and that…the residential segment in HCM City would face fierce competition due to oversupply in and around the city. Townsend cited the backlog of apartments from 2008 and 2009 as one reason for the market glut.”

“Launches expected this year would add an additional 30,000 units, triple the amount in 2008 or 2009, and contribute further to the competition, Townsend said. The super-deluxe segment would also emerge and attract serious attention, he said. Condos priced at US$10,000 per square meter and villas costing US$3 million will be offered in this segment.”

From Xinhua. “China’s southern island province of Hainan will suspend land leasing and development approval in a move to curb property speculation, the province’s Party chief has said. Following a tourism promotion policy document issued by the central government earlier this month, real estate developers have flocked into the island, causing new property bubble concerns, WeiLiucheng, secretary of the Communist Party of China Hainan provincial committee, said at a meeting in Haikou Friday.”

“Housing prices in Hainan has surged after the release of the tourism-boosting plan, with some programs hitting 70,000 yuan (10,249 U.S. dollars) per square meter, arising high alertness from the local government.”

“Property trading in Beijing in the first two weeks of this year slumped, following a string of government moves to curb soaring real estate prices. Beijing property transaction management authority said on its website Friday that sales of future delivery residential apartments during Jan. 1 to Jan. 13 were down 63.9 percent month on month to 3,031 units, compared with 8,397 units in the first half of December.”

“Those for second-hand homes also plunged 73.3 percent to 4,800 units, according to data from the website.”

The Associated Press. “Beijing took steps last week to curb the kinds of high-risk loans that can create housing bubbles, as happened in the United States. It ordered banks to set aside more reserves, and its central bank raised interest rates on one-year bills. China, which was also hit by the worldwide downturn but has bounced back fast.”

“Because Beijing can dictate lending patterns to state-controlled banks, it’s been far more successful than the U.S. government in loosening the flow of credit. Last year, under orders, Chinese banks lent $1.3 trillion in January-October — more than double the level for all of 2008. China’s action Tuesday came sooner than expected. Analysts suggested it might have been prompted by reports that Chinese banks lent 600 billion yuan, or about $88 billion, in the first week of January — nearly double the total for all of December.”

“‘This is an extremely high figure, and suggests that the banks are rushing to push loans out the door ahead of the widely anticipated tightening of monetary policy,’ said Tom Orlik, an economist in Beijing.”

“But the money flowing through the economy helped drive up real estate and stock prices. Housing prices in Beijing and Shanghai have soared since late 2008 to an average of more than 12,000 yuan ($1,700) per square meter, double the level three years ago, according to a December report by U.S. bond manager Pimco.”

The Guardian. “The Chinese authorities are well aware of the risk of a bubble, and have taken a series of steps in recent weeks, including increasing banks’ reserve requirements, to try and cool things down. ‘They’ve got very scared that they can’t control it,’ says Mark Williams, senior China economist at consultancy Capital Economics.”

“Capital controls protecting the currency from a financial exodus mean it’s hard for domestic investors to send their surplus funds abroad – so with banks directed to pump up lending, cheap cash is pushing up asset prices at home. Bank lending in December was more than 95% higher than a year earlier, according to the People’s Bank of China.”

From Time Magazine. “Much of the fault of the financial crisis has been heaped on Wall Streeters, unscrupulous mortgage lenders and weak regulators. But in a new research paper, economist Ricardo Caballero says there is another major group of contributors to America’s monetary mess who are not getting the blame they deserve: foreigners. ‘There is no doubt that the pressure on the U.S. financial system [that led to the financial crisis] came from abroad,’ says Caballero, who is the head of MIT’s economics department. ‘Foreign investors created a demand for assets that was difficult for the U.S. financial sector to produce. All they wanted were safe assets, and [their ensuing purchases] made the U.S. unsafe.’”

“‘What worries me is Congress trying to create new regulations, but not asking where the pressure was coming from to create these products,’ says Caballero. ‘In terms of formulating a solution, just looking at the U.S. financial system is not the answer.’”

“China, contending with a huge trade surplus with the U.S., bought more and more Treasury bonds, pushing down yields and making Treasuries less attractive to other foreign investors. As a result, the rising demand for higher yielding U.S. debt opened the door for Wall Street investment bankers to spin out new classes of fixed-income securities, most notably collateralized debt obligations. Much of the money raised by those investments was funneled in the mortgage market.”

From Barron’s. “All hangovers are lousy, whether you’ve overdone it on Dom Pérignon or plonk. But none is worse than a hangover caused by too much money. The mournful effects are everywhere today, in a sluggish economy, rampant unemployment and towering deficits that threaten to cripple our currency and wreck our living standards. These and other weighty topics were much on the minds of the members of the Barron’s Roundtable.”

“Are there any comparable periods in history? Felix Zulauf, owner of Zulauf Asset Management in Zug, Switzerland: ‘The only comparable in modern times is Japan, although Japan’s financial and economic crisis was worse. Japan lost three times the value of its gross domestic product as asset values deflated, while the U.S. lost only one times GDP. On the negative side, we are in the early stages of a deleveraging process, which is marked by a shift from maximizing profits to minimizing debt. It is a multiyear process.’”

“Isn’t the stimulus slated to end this year? Zulauf: ‘That’s the big question. Central bankers themselves are somewhat afraid of what they have been doing. Politicians are worried about public-sector debt. Therefore, the authorities will try to step away slowly from their stimulation efforts, because this policy isn’t sustainable.’”

“Abby Joseph Cohen, Senior investment strategist…Goldman Sachs, New York: ‘Felix is correct that the structural problems will take a while to correct, and the problem isn’t just the United States. Some make the specious argument that what happened is all the fault of the U.S. consumer. But housing markets became overpriced throughout the world. Too much credit was extended in a whole variety of places.’”

“Zulauf: ‘China is in a dangerous situation. Credit growth is the one factor that all the bubbles that burst had in common. Because China isn’t an open economy, the bubble there can probably keep inflating longer than it otherwise would have. But the Chinese can’t escape the laws of economics. If China’s bubble bursts, it would cause a second hit to the world economy.’”

“Vancouver is going to face a shortfall of apartment units following its hosting of next month’s Winter Olympics Games, said the realtor known as the city’s ‘CondoKing,.’ Bob Rennie told Xinhua in an exclusive interview that Vancouver properties would conservatively rise 4 to 4.5 percent in 2010, which would present an ideal opportunity for investors. The high-profile designer and marketer of condominium developments said with the city going through a difficult economic downturn in 2008, in Greater Vancouver alone the construction of between 4,000 to 6,000 apartments units had been put on hold.”

“‘If there was ever going to be an Olympic overhang we took care of it in 2008-2009 by canceling buildings. We are now coming into a shortfall where banks are very conservative, Canadian banking practices are always very conservative, and developers are just coming off the sidelines,’ he said.”

“Unlike China where real estate speculation is rampant, Rennie added in Vancouver it was ‘more passive speculation’ with investors buying for the long term. ‘Every market has people who want to jump in and jump out, but there is something unique about Vancouver that once people get their name on title they tend to hold and that’s what maintained prices. And a very low vacancy rate has maintained prices on property prices.’”

“With Chinese-Canadians about 300,000 of the city’s 2.2 million population Rennie said Asian investors were increasingly an important factor to the market, accounting for about 25 percent of the overall sales. ‘With the amount of money being made in China, and with the acceptance of China to Vancouver, we have to be in the top two places on the planet for China to look at, to move money to. We see it happening right now, it’s happening a lot. It used to just happen in the luxury market, now it’s happening in all the market.’”

“One of Rennie’s big projects following the Olympics and March Paralympics will be the marketing and sales of the Olympic Village which will be released May 15. To date, 265 of the 737 condo units have been sold. They range from 600,000 Canadian dollars to 10 million Canadian dollars.”

“He went as far to say that much like the World Expo that the city hosted in 1986, the Olympics would ‘ensure’ the Vancouver brand forever. ‘I’ll guarantee it won’t hurt our values. I’ll guarantee it will maintain our values. The frightening part is if values go up too much. We don’t have financial sector head office jobs, no manufacturing. If we are basing things on local incomes, how does housing keep up with local incomes if we have a shortage? We have to be very careful on the affordability side.’”

“According to Royal LePage, the median price for properties in Greater Vancouver in 2009 was 592,000 Canadian dollars, about 1,000 Canadian dollars off its 2008 peak. “




RSS feed | Trackback URI

52 Comments »

Comment by Sammy Schadenfreude
2010-01-17 10:24:03

“Abby Joseph Cohen, Senior investment strategist…Goldman Sachs, New York: ‘Felix is correct that the structural problems will take a while to correct, and the problem isn’t just the United States. Some make the specious argument that what happened is all the fault of the U.S. consumer. But housing markets became overpriced throughout the world. Too much credit was extended in a whole variety of places.’”

Has anyone else noticed that Abby Joseph Cohen and Henry Blodgett, the poster children of the tech bubble, are trying to redeem themselves by warning of a credit bubble?

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 13:32:48

Barn door left open
All the horses ran away
Hurry — shut the door!

 
 
Comment by combotechie
2010-01-17 10:24:36

“On the negative side, we are in the early stages of a deleveraging process, which is marked by a shift in maximazing profits to minimizing debt. It is a multiyear process.”

There it is.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 10:26:36

I don’t understand why this writer is so gloomy. So far as I can tell, too-big-to-fail is about to turn into toast.

Dec 23, 2009

THE BEAR’S LAIR
Bank on little change
By Martin Hutchinson

It must surely have become obvious from both the catastrophes of 2008 and the bumper profits of 2009 that the investment banking/trading business, whether through independent behemoths or within even larger commercial banks, simply isn’t working.

Now that “too big to fail” bailouts by taxpayers have been established, risk management in the industry is a joke. Thus the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s recommendation last week that banks suffering capital shortfalls should be forced to stop paying bonuses is a welcome opening salvo in a new struggle. That struggle is to force investment bankers’ remuneration back towards a partnership system. Investment bankers must suffer in their pocketbooks from disasters, and rent-seeking rip-offs of the taxpayers and the general economy must be minimized.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 10:29:20

“But the money flowing through the economy helped drive up real estate and stock prices. Housing prices in Beijing and Shanghai have soared since late 2008 to an average of more than 12,000 yuan ($1,700) per square meter, double the level three years ago, according to a December report by U.S. bond manager Pimco.”

Obviously there is no housing bubble in China, at least of the variety top Fed officials can spot.

Comment by combotechie
2010-01-17 10:37:58

“But the money flowing through the economy helped drive up real estate and stock prices.”

There, see that? It’s all about money flow. When money flows too freely then prices rises. When the money flow slows then prices drop.

Right now the money flow has slowed and prices everywhere are dropping.

Cash rules.

Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-01-17 11:11:10

And here we see another MORON with a graduate degree from an acclaimed university misdirecting from whence the problems doth come:

‘Foreign investors created a demand for assets that was difficult for the U.S. financial sector to produce. All they wanted were safe assets, and [their ensuing purchases] made the U.S. unsafe.’”

WallStreet (Goldman, Chase, MORGAN, Lehman, etc.) made the US unsafe, you overly educated idiot.

The problem was CHEAP MONEY, i.e. FED pricing interests rates at negative real returns. Everyone needs to make positive returns to stay solvent. There was nowhere to get safe returns that approached what was necessary to keep their investment plans on track without losses. Everyone in the world was running around trying to find a safe AAA investment. They still are doing that.

The solution from Wallstreet AAA-rated bags of crap with the collusion of the rating agencies told people they could get RETURN with no RISK. Of course they bought it. They had to.
Wallstreet went chasing after crappy loans to package and sell.
That was the game. Once sold, then the problem belonged to the buyer. When the game was finally up, the whole system basically froze up in cascading defautlts.

‘Foreign investors created a demand for assets that was difficult for the U.S. financial sector to produce. All they wanted were safe assets, and [their ensuing purchases] made the U.S. unsafe.’”

I had to read it again. You are stupid. The US financial sector fooled a bunch of suckers into buying their MBS, CDO’s Credit default swaps, swaps cubed, blah, blah, but unbeknownst to them the AAA-rated PAPER was toilet paper.
Thence comes Bernanke and Paulson, then Geithner to pay out all the loses with free FED money. We will be paying for a long time for Wallstreet FRAUD. The certificates were worthless the day they were issued. That was the problem you stooge.

- have a happy Sunday.
-D.

Comment by joeyinCalif
2010-01-17 15:26:05

Speaking of ratings, I heard something new (to me) the other day.

Lets say they assemble a pool of mortgages into a MBS. The security includes 10 mortgages. The security is sold to a hundred investors.

Next, one of those mortgages is taken out of the pool. (The property was sold, or mortgage was somehow paid off.)

The original value of the MBS has to be maintained so one or more new mortgage needs to be added to it.
—-

What I heard was that the new mortgage need NOT be rated equal to the one it replaced.
Also, the investors have no control over what is added.

I don’t know if any of that’s true, but if it is, it means that the value of a MBS can change with time. It could start off AAA and then deteriorate.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Housing Wizard
2010-01-17 23:48:39

It’s real simple . Wall Street provided what this money flow wanted and that was AAA paper at somewhat attractive rates
at the time . It did’n't matter that it was false and they just threw the money out there so they could provide these investments that they made money on .

Wall Street should of just said no to the money supply coming
in ,or at least rated the paper at its proper risk which would of
curbed the funds for lending to any Tom Dick or Harry that applied . But Wall Street can’t say no to any money making opportunity .

 
 
Comment by Matt_in_TX
2010-01-18 06:36:14

Yes, we need a crusade on foreign stupidity ;)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 13:36:38

“Right now the money flow has slowed and prices everywhere are dropping.”

Could you please offer a simpler explanation? I am afraid such a complex explanation as the one you offered may be difficult for top banking industry and regulatory officials to grasp.

 
 
Comment by NYCityBoy
2010-01-17 13:36:04

“Housing prices in Beijing and Shanghai have soared since late 2008 to an average of more than 12,000 yuan ($1,700) per square meter”

That equates to about $170 per square foot. Here in Fantasyland prices got up to about $1,400 per square foot. Perhaps China has much further to go.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 13:56:10

I guess that depends in part on what kind of household incomes they have to support bubble prices. I am guessing the median household income is far smaller there than in Fantasyland?

 
 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-17 11:30:06

That compares with a ratio of 2.5 times household income in the US and five times income in Britain.

Are we really back down to a ratio of 2.5? I have my doubts.

Comment by Kim
2010-01-17 11:40:04

Still over six times income in my neck of the woods…

Comment by B. Durbin
2010-01-17 19:10:16

It’s got to be an average. I’m sure there’s large swaths of the country where the ratio is low, even without counting Detroit.

 
 
 
Comment by DennisN
2010-01-17 11:34:43

How come wombats isn’t commenting in the Australian thread? ;)

It’s different here - there’s a permanent shortage of placentas.

Comment by SDGreg
2010-01-17 21:48:46

“Australian families are being priced out of the property market by record numbers of highly paid skilled workers arriving from overseas. Research by The Sunday Telegraph has revealed for the first time how skilled immigrants - predominantly from Britain, India and China - are forcing house prices to some of the highest levels in the world when compared with average incomes. The median Australian property now costs 5.5 times the average household income, and about eight times income in Sydney. That compares with a ratio of 2.5 times household income in the US and five times income in Britain.”

That’s interesting. In the U.S., immigrant labor, skilled and unskilled, was used to drive down wages. Broad movement of wages in the U.S., mostly static or down, had nothing to do with the bubble increases in housing prices in the U.S. Are the supposedly higher wages of a select group of workers really driving housing prices higher in Australia or is it mostly credit expansion as has happened in most other places?

Comment by Bad Chile
2010-01-18 05:37:30

I was a skilled immigrant to Australia for four months back in 2007-2008, then returned to the states. If there is one thing the Aussies do right it is manage their skilled immigration - you need 100 points to get a work visa. In my case I got 50 from being sponsored, 25 for being an engineer, and 25 for speaking English fluently. But I digress.

The Kool-Aid was alive and well back then in the Sydney area (I’ve been on this board since ‘05 IIRC). My employer was paying for my apartment, and I had no desire to relocate to a rental house - which they would have done to save money - because my apartment had cleaning service six days a week and overlooked the beach.

Part of the reason I didn’t move the whole family down there and stay permanetly is that Sydney home prices were more expensive than US prices and there is no such thing as a fixed rate mortgage. Everything is ARM. They’ve kept the game going a little longer than I imagined, but I figured if I were back in the states when it hit the fan I’d be better off (which I am).

I remember sitting in a bar one night chatting with locals about the RE market, one bloke said the classic “they’re not making any more land” and beer came out of my nose it was so funny. Australia has ~21 million people crammed into a land mass bigger than the continental US.

 
 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-17 11:38:24

The figures I’m seeing with a quick web check are US median household 2007 income at 50K and a current median home price of around 173K.

And income has fallen in America since 2007. (Not including the one fifth of one percent of our population)

 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-17 11:43:55

If the current home price ratio is now at 3.5 times yearly income and the past average has been around 3 times then are not current NATIONAL prices about right considering the ultra low interest rates?

Comment by Ben Jones
2010-01-17 13:02:25

Here in my little burg, median income is about 26k, median houses around 325k.

Comment by NYCityBoy
2010-01-17 13:39:28

I would love to see:

- Median savings account (really small)

- Median credit card debt (really large)

- Median financial IQ (zero)

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 13:54:32

- Median home equity (negative)

- Median net worth (negative)

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by RioAmericanInBrasil
2010-01-17 14:08:56

This is what I don’t get at all. National figures indicate prices are 3.5 times household income RIGHT NOW, but it’s not CLOSE to this ratio in most of the major population centers of the entire country! What gives?

1. Are the figures wrong?
2. Are rich people “dumber” than poor?
3. Are current policies propping up expensive houses more than cheaper houses?
4. Is the high end in for a real wuppin?

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 15:15:06

You will get misleading results if you compare the national median home price to the national median income and try to use it as a proxy for bubble zone price-income ratios.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Diogenes (Tampa, Florida)
2010-01-17 15:42:27

I think the comparisons are not valid in all cases. The whole financial scenery has changed over the past 20 years. FED money creation and LOW Low interest rates have skewed investment performance and make comparisons difficult.

If houses are fairly priced at 4.5% mortgage rates, what does that mean when the rates go higher? The price is too high.
Both housing and stock and bond prices are related as ALTERNATE investments. For most of the 20th Century, you could get bank returns around 3-5% if you put your money in a savings account.
Consequently, if you couldn’t get 7-8% or better in stocks and bonds, why would you RISK your money? Just leave it in the bank.
The loNG-term trend in cheaper money has had massive effects on the markets and housing. Given NO money down and no income loans and really cheap rates, prices inevitably went up. BUT, given high unemployment, still too low rates, high inventory, are traditional metrics meaningful?
I think not. Same with stocks. They are overpriced because alternate investments pay nothing. When rates begin to rise, the game will change again for both stocks and housing. I think we are in for another leg down in the pricing of both.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 21:14:11

“FED money creation and LOW Low interest rates have skewed investment performance and make comparisons difficult.”

Law of unintended consequences due to juxtaposition of myriad hair-of-the-dog housing stimulus:

Juxtaposition of

(1) LOW Low mortgage rates +

(2) $8K tax credit for first-time (marginally qualified) buyers +

(3) banks withholding of foreclosure inventory from the used home market +

(4) restoration of income verification on loan applications +

(5) Low-interest govt-guaranteed GSE-securitized loans up to $730K +

(6) Permanent shutdown of private mortgage loan securitization sump pump

=

(1) Encouragement of first-time buyers to overpay for crappy entry-level housing +

(2) Rapid disappearance of anything priced within range of credit-augmented first-time buyer purchase budgets +

(3) Ongoing dearth of buyers qualified and interested in buying homes priced for jumbo loan financing ($730K+)

= FUBAR Frankenstein parody of a functioning housing market

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 21:45:47

Sorry that is a bit of a jumble; I think the ingredients of a good explanation are in there, but it is hard to post coherently when kids are running amok in the background…

 
Comment by Matt_in_TX
2010-01-18 06:41:39

Clearly you need more bedrooms! :)

 
 
 
Comment by Lisa
2010-01-17 15:08:19

“Here in my little burg, median income is about 26k, median houses around 325k.”

Here in my little burg (Marin County), median HHI is $90K, but the median home price is still around $750K. Down from $1MM at the bubble’s peak, but still way out of whack with income.

When I bought in ‘96, median home price was around $275K. Then we had the tech bubble followed by voodoo lending and all hell broke loose with prices.

Comment by DennisN
2010-01-17 18:04:21

I sold my crummy little stucco box in San Jose in 2006 for $670K. At the time I was making about $150K, so that would have been 4.46 times my annual income…

But I didn’t sell to myself. I sold to a house painter. What was he making - maybe $50K? That would pencil out to 13.4 times annual income. Naturally he defaulted in less than two years…….

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by B. Durbin
2010-01-17 19:13:21

At one point, we went to one of those online income comparison calculators and determined that if you wanted to buy in the south Bay, you needed an income twice that if you were renting to maintain the same standard of living. That’s just crazy. (Those calculators are very handy if you’re considering a promotion in another market, especially when the new location has a higher cost of living.)

 
 
 
 
Comment by GrizzlyBear
2010-01-17 14:13:44

No, if anything because the mix of properties selling is skewed towards the lower end. Meanwhile, the higher end is dying on the vine. Until median prices, and sales, represent an accurate cross section of all price bands, it’s not safe to assume that prices are “right”.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 13:30:35

“Australian families are being priced out of the property market by record numbers of highly paid skilled workers arriving from overseas. Research by The Sunday Telegraph has revealed for the first time how skilled immigrants - predominantly from Britain, India and China - are forcing house prices to some of the highest levels in the world when compared with average incomes. The median Australian property now costs 5.5 times the average household income, and about eight times income in Sydney. That compares with a ratio of 2.5 times household income in the US and five times income in Britain.”

I can’t help but wonder whether these are some of the same highly paid skilled workers who drove California home prices to the stratosphere circa 2005-2007?

Comment by snake charmer
2010-01-17 15:32:50

I’ve been to Australia twice, but it was over a decade ago. I’m curious to know what industry employs the “highly paid skilled workers arriving from overseas.” Commodity producers are booming, but other than that, it’s tough to tell where upward wage pressures could be coming from.

 
Comment by yensoy
2010-01-17 22:16:59

Echoing an earlier reply from this thread, are foreign skilled workers (a) driving salaries down or (b) driving home prices up? Pick one, please! (While not a mathematical impossibility) I can’t see how foreign workers can be blamed for both (a) and (b).

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 14:00:49

“Property trading in Beijing in the first two weeks of this year slumped, following a string of government moves to curb soaring real estate prices. Beijing property transaction management authority said on its website Friday that sales of future delivery residential apartments during Jan. 1 to Jan. 13 were down 63.9 percent month on month to 3,031 units, compared with 8,397 units in the first half of December.”

I can’t help but wonder if U.S. investors will turn out to be the major bagholders in the collapse of the Chinese real estate bubble, in a similar manner to how Japanese real estate investors were the prime bagholders during the collapsing U.S. property bubble in the early 1990s?

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 14:03:57

It also occurs to me that the Chinese government may have stolen from the Wall Street bankster’s play book:

1) Use an inflating price bubble to lure in rubes from the U.S. and other places with sheep looking for a shearing;

2) Drown the greater fools in a tsunami tide of price collapse, once you have extracted their investment dollars at peak bubble prices.

 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2010-01-17 14:47:35

“in Vancouver it was ‘more passive speculation’”

I did wonder why it is different in Vancouver.

The train track goes to infinity.

Comment by yensoy
2010-01-17 22:18:47

I did wonder why it is different in Vancouver.

Favourable Feng Shui.

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 14:51:55

Business

Big banks to slash bonuses and benefits
By Stephen Foley
4:00 AM Monday Jan 18, 2010

Wall Street banks plan to highlight caps on cash bonuses and cuts in the proportion of revenues paid out to employees in a rearguard action against the public and political assault on their bumper payouts.

Executives at the largest US banks, led by Goldman Sachs, are spending the long weekend putting finishing touches to financial reports for 2009, which will reveal whether the annual bonus season lives up to its billing as the most expensive on record.

Goldman Sachs, which has become a lightning rod for public fury over the taxpayer bailout, has slashed the money going into its bonus pool in an attempt to keep payout levels below their 2007 peak, analysts believe. And investors were quietly betting last week that the proportion of revenues handed to staff could turn out to be lower than published estimates, as banks strive to boost profits in the face of disappointing results from their trading operations in the fourth quarter of 2009.

The question is whether these moves will be enough to subdue a ferocious attack on the industry, including the US$117 billion ($158 billion) tax proposed by the Administration.

Goldman Sachs is expected to announce a compensation total of US$16.7 billion for the year on Thursday, including salaries and benefits as well as bonuses.

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 14:55:17

From The Times
January 14, 2010

Wall Street four admit failures as crisis inquiry goes on attack

Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, John Mack and Brian Moynihan being sworn in to testify before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

Alexandra Frean, US Business Correspondent

Four of Wall Street’s leading bankers yesterday admitted to a number of failures before the financial crisis but sought to defend pay in their industry as inquisitors on Capitol Hill accused them of acting like used-car salesmen.

The White House said that an apology from the industry was in order as the four testified at the opening session of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), set up last year by US Congress.

The quartet — Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase; Brian Moynihan, the new Bank of America chief executive; John Mack, chairman of Morgan Stanley; and Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs — faced aggressive questioning from the commission, in particular from Phil Angelides, its chairman.

The commission was set up to investigate and report on causes of the financial meltdown that led to the banks receiving billions of dollars in bailout money, at the same time causing the highest unemployment in a quarter of a century.

The hearings are expected to fuel public anger over bank bailouts in the United States, not least because the big four banks are poised to announce hefty profits and bonuses when their earnings season begins later this week.

Related Links

* Former Fed chairman tells bankers to ‘wake up’
* Washington plans bank pay crackdown
* Obama struggles to curb the Gekkos

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 15:02:21

Posted on Sunday, 01.17.10

Financial panel’s head wastes no time in going after bankers

WASHINGTON

Phil Angelides wants some answers: With millions of Americans out of work and millions losing their homes, why is Wall Street is having a record year, with record profits and record bonuses for top executives?

As the chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Angelides has a good perch to ask his questions. It’s a special panel similar to the 9/11 Commission, charged with writing the official history of what caused the nation’s financial systems to fall apart in 2008.

We’ll follow the evidence wherever it leads,” Angelides said Wednesday as the 10-member bipartisan commission kicked off its first public hearing on Capitol Hill.

Two blocks from the Treasury, where the government not long ago scrambled to save a collapsing financial system, a team of investigators armed with subpoena powers is preparing the official narrative of the crisis and what went wrong.

As Washington focuses on Congress’ regulatory response to the 2008 Wall Street meltdown, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that Congress created last spring has been an afterthought.

Until now.

It’s been 77 years since the Pecora Commission combed through cabinets full of banking records, exposed the abuses that led to the stock market crash of 1929 and created a public furor that eased passage of sweeping securities reforms.

On Wednesday, as the nation crawls from the depths of the worst economic collapse since the 1930s, Americans will see whether a similar commission that Congress has created to investigate today’s crisis will echo that no-holds-barred inquiry of the Great Depression as its 10 members confront the Wall Street giants of the 21st century.

Among leadoff witnesses at the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s opening hearing: Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street goliath that largely escaped the subprime mortgage debacle - and may have profited from it - by selling off $40 billion in securities backed by risky home loans while secretly betting that the housing market would plummet.

Comment by bobby c
2010-01-17 19:29:31

The reason they are seeing record profits is because they dont have disclose their losses via bad performing assets. Mark to Market, whats that?

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 15:07:17

How does the revelation of Gollum’s “secret” plan to profit immensely from a collapsing housing bubble square with the bankster litany that “no one could have seen it coming”?

Posted on Wednesday, 01.13.10

Goldman admits improper’ actions in sales of securities
By GREG GORDON AND KEVIN G. HALL
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Goldman Sachs’ chief acknowledged Wednesday that the investment bank engaged in “improper” behavior in 2006 and 2007 when it made huge bets on a housing downturn while peddling as safe more than $40 billion in securities backed by risky U.S. home loans.

Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s chairman and chief executive, made the surprising concession at the opening hearing of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a 10-member panel that Congress created to investigate and lay out for the public the causes of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Blankfein and senior officers of three other of the nation’s most prominent banks told the panel that serious flaws in their risk models and business practices contributed to Wall Street’s meltdown and the massive taxpayer bailouts that followed. The commission also heard testimony that the banks and quasi-government mortgage giant Fannie Mae recklessly took on as much as 95 times more risk than they could cover, and that Wall Street excels “at pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people.”

 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 15:12:05

Is there at least a glimmer of Hope Now that Wall Street’s subprime mortgage lending kingpins might be brought to justice for their roles in destroying the U.S. housing financing system while sending millions of American families on a one-way trip to the poor house?

Posted on Thursday, 01.14.10

Justice Department eyes possible fraud on Wall Street

By Greg Gordon
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Turning its scrutiny to bigger fish in the subprime mortgage scandal, the Justice Department is investigating whether lenders or Wall Street firms defrauded investors in the sale of risky mortgage securities, its Criminal Division chief disclosed Thursday.

“We absolutely are looking at the conduct of the securitizers themselves, and what did they say to those who purchased the (securities),” Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer told a commission created by Congress to investigate causes of the nation’s economic collapse.

“Candidly, (we) have been looking at that for awhile and are looking at that right now in a very key matter.”

Breuer didn’t identify any company under scrutiny, but Wall Street’s biggest investment banks bought many of the $2 trillion in home mortgages issued to shaky borrowers, converted them to high-yield bonds and sold the bonds to investors including pension funds, insurers and foreign banks. Many of the securities have since defaulted, and investors have lost billions of dollars.

Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 23:25:34

Is there anyone at this point who doubts that the private mortgage securitization market is permanently defunct?

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 17:51:21

‘“Property prices in the US and Britain have collapsed, but neither country approached Australia’s peak of six times income even before their markets crashed.’

San Diego median home sales price at the peak (2006?) = $517K

San Diego median household income (2007) = $60K

Median home sale price to income ratio was about $517K/$60K = 8.6 (peak at more than six times income)…

Comment by Matt_in_TX
2010-01-18 06:47:15

is there any place in Australia where the ratio is higher than their national average?

 
 
Comment by Professor Bear
2010-01-17 18:18:03

“Therefore, the authorities will try to step away slowly from their stimulation efforts, because this policy isn’t sustainable.”

Playing the Devil’s advocate, why can’t the Fed sustain ZIRP indefinitely? What could stand in their way?

Comment by yensoy
2010-01-17 22:20:29

China, or their willingness and ability to buy USTs at close to zero.

 
 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post