April 6, 2014

A Boom Based On Unshakeable Faith

I suggested a topic on bubble peaks. “I was pondering some recent news and thought about the parabolic nature of manias. It’s discussed at this link among other places. A parabolic blow off is more than a spike on a graph. In participant terms, it reflects an extreme optimism, even a frenzy, concluding with the maximum number of fellow believers. The number of market participants then exhausted, the market will then experience a sudden reversal. Of course, almost everyone will be totally surprised. Confusion, disbelief should be expected at first.”

“Denver is at an all time high, or was at an all time high. So are several other markets; Dallas, parts of Boston and California. People begging sellers, throwing huge amounts of money around. A parabolic move explains the dumbstruck feel that is settling in in Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego and Los Angeles. Because a parabolic move turns so quickly, one should expect at first aspects of total fear to be happening at the same time as total euphoria. Not everybody realizes what’s going on at the same time.”

A reply, “Fear more than optimism. The middle class is shrinking. If you don’t own a home, you are left out of the middle class. If you don’t buy now before the price goes up, you’ll never be able to. It’s your last chance. There is only room for a few more on the ark, and the rest will be left to drown. My impression is the number of suckers has gone down. But not to zero.”

And finally, “Massive denial and very little open acknowledgment that the China housing bubble is popping before our very eyes.”

The San Francisco Chronicle. “Earlier this month, there was an invite-only reception at Vida, a condominium project being built next to the New Mission Theater. 250 potential buyers sipped on cans of Modelo and ate tapas. Two days later, 20 units were in contract - and the building won’t even open until January. ‘It was a madhouse,’ said Matt Fuller of Zephyr Real Estate.”

“If that sounds reminiscent of late 2007, when buyers lined up outside One Rincon Hill until the wee hours, it is. Median condo prices in San Francisco are now above $830,000, about 8.2 percent higher than the peak reached right before the economic crash in early 2008. At One Rincon Hill, a unit sold recently for $815,000, a 15 percent profit over its early 2008 purchase price. The seller’s broker, Leslie Bauer of Sotheby’s International, said, ‘Even a year ago it would have sold for about $650,000.’”

The Guardian in the UK. “It was smaller than I remembered it. Cramped and with a strange smell. ‘Why is the fridge in living room?’ I asked the perky estate agent, who sensed my alarm. ‘Well, it’s more rentable that way. Do you know the area? It can only go up.’ I did indeed know the area, inside out. The flat I was looking at had been mine just over 20 years ago.”

“My old flat was on the market for more than half a million pounds. It is an investment because anywhere in London is an ‘investment’. This is the way to think. A house now has to be multifunctional: a home, a pension pot or a buy-to-let. The last budget has made it easier to release pension funds to buy property. A house in London, everyone says, just keeps going up in price whatever you do to it. Every viewing is full of anxious, desperate people whispering about storage space while eyeing up the enemy: people just like them.”

The Irish Mirror. “Property prices are rocketing by €5,000 a month in the capital and what do we do? That’s right, Bank of Ireland pours petrol on the flames by offering to pay the stamp duty for first-time buyers. And to prove the good times are rolling again for the rich, the Irish Times yesterday published an 18-page property supplement. You’d have imagined the ghost estates would act as warning signs on the road to future ruin. And the plight of 100,000 families in mortgage arrears and many more in negative equity might deter anyone from joining them in home-loan hell.”

“But no, it appears us Paddies are genetically programmed to purchase property and the madness of the past boom is set to start all over again. The signs are all there with queues forming outside estate agents as frantic buyers try to outbid each other for homes which are already overpriced. On Dublin’s northside homes are being bombarded with leaflets urging owners to consider selling to take advantage of the property shortage.”

“Hang on, there’s a property shortage in the capital just five years after you could hardly give the stuff away? Was there not whole swathes of land, including the notorious 25-acre Irish Glass Bottle site, which could have been built on to provide thousands of homes but weren’t?”

The South China Morning Post. “Municipal officials in the Yangtze River Delta are learning a hard lesson: excitement over a flourishing regional economy can be dangerous. While a loan default by a developer in Zhejiang sparked fears of a collapse of the residential property sector, the situation in the office sector appears to be even worse. Residential property developers can at least slash prices to dispose of flats to recover part of their investment. Half-empty buildings, however, are not just white elephants but financial black holes.”

“Jones Lang LaSalle found that at the end of last year, occupancy rates for Grade A office buildings stood at 58 per cent in Wuxi, Jiangsu, and 30 per cent in the Zhejiang capital, Hangzhou. In other major delta cities, which together make up the most vibrant and developed regional economy on the mainland, occupancy rates also hovered around 30 per cent last year.”

“Over the past decade, delta cities have pulled out all the stops to launch one new town one after another. Located on the suburban fringes of each city, they are designed to accommodate millions of residents and attract more corporate investors. The boom was based on officials’ unshakeable faith that sustainable growth of delta cities would last for decades.”

The Kingston Region. ” Margaret Wente’s ‘The phony crisis of the middle class’ proclaimed ‘every income group in Canada has gotten richer, while the people at the very top have gotten filthy rich. Is this a problem? You decide’, while the National Post’s John Shmuel wrote ‘the three middle quintiles - which can roughly be defined as Canada’s middle class - increased their share of the country’s $8.07 trillion personal net worth by 1.8 percentage points.’ The overall message was crystal clear: The data speaks for itself. You’ve never been doing better. Keep calm and carry on. Everything is fine.”

“Well, not quite. As economists Eugene Lang and Frank Graves have argued in the Toronto Star, Wente and Shmuel gloss over the fact that the net worth boom is almost entirely due to the phenomenal increases in housing values, which has had the doubly negative effect of pricing a new generation out of the housing market while enabling boomers to drown themselves in lines of credit and credit card debt. Then of course, there’s the troubling question of how long can the housing boom possibly last before meeting its inexorable end?”

“Total debt has increased 110 per cent over the past 15 years, from about $450 billion to well over $1 trillion. These are supremely uncomfortable debt-loads, all underpinned by a housing market that may very well be on the brink of catastrophe. This level of personal debt is relatively new for our country, and most economists worth their weight fully realize that it’s not at all sustainable without significant economic growth.”

“Which turns us to the question of wages. Andrew Sharpe at the Centre for the Study of Living found that the median real wage increased from $41,348 to $41,401 (in 2005 constant dollars) over 25 years. That’s $63. Not exactly boom time figures. In fact, the same Stats-Can report referenced by Wente and Shmuel found that over 30 years, real wages only grew by $2.50 for men and $4.50 for women, which translates to 11 per cent and 26 per cent, respectively (in 2010 dollars).”

“Hardly enough to support and drive the kind of debt binging currently fueling the economic ‘recovery’ from the 2008 economic collapse. Things are different now -more precarious, less just. We really aren’t richer than we think.”




RSS feed

66 Comments »

Comment by Ben Jones
2014-04-05 08:43:29

“All I’ll say is that you’d think investors would’ve learned from the Tech bubble and housing bubble, but I guess they were just dying to touch the hot stove once again,” said Rich Bernstein in a recent email to Business Insider. “Now they’re getting burned.”

Comment by The Zima Guy
2014-04-05 09:13:51

Cheap money has to go somewhere. Housing and Tech are the only thing we do in this country anymore. Housing because the government backs loans so there seems to be endless supply of buyers and techs because there is a minimal cost of entry. Tech, at least the Silicon Valley one is nothing more than speculative industry fueled by cheap money.

Comment by Ben Jones
2014-04-05 09:28:35

I’m reminded that when the 80’s oil boom was happening in Texas, we didn’t think it too odd that Dallas just so happened to have the hottest real estate market in the world, four years in a row. What a mighty coincidence, it turned out! I thought about that when I read this April Fools Day article:

‘A surge of homes coming on the market in Palo Alto have flipped the local real-estate scene upside down, creating a panic among real estate agents about an exodus of millionaires and an impending housing glut.’

‘Typically there are about 40 homes available, Realtor Mary Gosalves told the Weekly, but with fears of a new stock-market crash prompting people to cash out their home equity now, more than twice that number are on the market this week. After years of rising prices and a surging demand, the pressures have completely reversed, Gosalves said, with the number of sellers far exceeding the number of buyers.’

‘She pointed to a recent decision by Facebook founder Mark Zuckenberg to sell his historic Edgewood Drive home for “six Bitcoins, a new foosball machine and an app to be named later” as the new sign of the times.’

“The days of selling a starter home in Old Palo Alto for $5 million are sadly long gone,” said Gosalves, as she stood next to a vacant Tudor house on Bryant Street, its boarded-up windows covered in graffiti.’

‘As the stock market hovers on the edge, many homeowners fear that their property values could be next, she said…It’s not uncommon these days to see Tesla caravans leaving Palo Alto en route to pricier and tonier destinations like Sunnyvale, Bakersfield and South San Francisco.’

(Happy AFD!)

Comment by The Zima Guy
2014-04-05 09:33:33

But Ben, Palo Alto has nicest weather. So says a provincial queen who’s never been out that much.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-05 11:40:02

“The days of selling a starter home in Old Palo Alto for $5 million are sadly long gone,”

How crazy is the notion of $5 million ’starter homes’? Pretty crazy in my opinion.

“As the stock market hovers on the edge, many homeowners fear that their property values could be next, she said…”

How many more warnings on the overvalued stock market will we have yet to endure before the market actually corrects? At this point, the warnings have about as much impact on investor behavior as The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf!’.

“It’s not uncommon these days to see Tesla caravans leaving Palo Alto en route to pricier and tonier destinations like Sunnyvale, Bakersfield and South San Francisco.”

That really was an April Fool’s joke, wasn’t it?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love me?"
2014-04-05 14:28:14

I saw a headline yesterday saying that the stock market is just computerized scalping. I didn’t have time to click on it, but I think that’s what’s going on.

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 08:54:22

“I didn’t have time to click on it,…”

No need to. I’m sure it was another take on Michael Lewis’s latest offering.

 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-05 11:42:29

From the comments to the article:

Comments
Posted by Not again, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 1, 2014 at 10:17 am

Scaremongering at it again…

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-04-06 09:12:54

Like we’ve forecasted here since last summer, the epicenter of the Housing Collapse is California and Denver, CO.

Remember…. demand resumed collapsing last June and is ongoing.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 10:03:20

Do you think the California mania will have subsided enough by five years from now to make it worth venturing back into the purchase side of the market? Or is the bubble destined to be propped up for decades to come by stealth government-sponsored financial engineering measures?

I guess it is all up to the man behind the curtain where California housing goes from here…

 
 
 
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love me?"
2014-04-05 14:23:26

The stuff that passes as “technology” these days isn’t. It’s mostly just consumer goods. We aren’t even inventing things anymore.

Comment by LolaLOL
2014-04-06 09:18:09

But look, here another app to show you the weather. This one is going to be big.

Or another game, or another planner/calendar.

Hey, here’s a fitness app, it will do everything except lift them heavy weights for you.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Brandon Boise
2014-04-06 10:14:20

Most apps are just various forms or entertainment or life hacking

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2014-04-05 10:46:58

How about a global stock market bubble? Would that be far fetched? Is a 10% per year annual gain in stock valuation on 8,000 stocks or so realistic to reflect the growth based on human creativity and ingenuity?

The Asian guy who was supposedly behind Bitcoin and who denied it was also one of the early cipher punks (wee Tim May’s cipher punk manifesto). Creative producers like that mathematician are all over the world producing things that make life more enjoyable.

Averaged over time of 20 years or so, I am sure to see mini localized bubbles such as the tech stock bubble of the 90s. But I am more likely to finish the 20 year period with a cost basis well below the NAV of my collective stock mutual funds. And more than 25% of them are international and emerging markets.

Comment by Rental Watch
2014-04-05 14:10:21

I’m trying my hand at value investing, or at least laying the groundwork for it through massive research/data crunching (ie. discounting the projected future performance of each company to the present to determine the “fair value” of a company today).

In that work, I’ve tracked as one of the variables, the growth over 5-year increments of book value per share for each company (as well as the range of Price/Book over the time). And as long as you are well diversified (to avoid individual company blow-ups), I think you’re right…with a 20-year time horizon, you are very unlikely to have a basis of less than the NAV at T+20 years.

However, so far, I’ve pulled the data I want from all 10-Qs and 10-Ks for about a dozen companies going back to the first available reports from the SEC online (about 1993, generally) and done the math. (I’m starting with “dividend champions”(25+ years of dividend growth) under the theory that their performance should be more predictable than young companies).

As an example, ADM has grown from a book value per share in 1994 of about $7 (split adjusted), and now as a book value per share of about $30. Over that time, about $7 in dividends have been paid per share. The cost of one share was $10.50 in 1994 (a 1.5x P/Book). The P/Book today is about 1.4x, with a stock price of $43. Even if you bought at the highest Quarter-end P/Book in June ‘06 (price in low $40’s, and P/Book of 2.76), you are a bit ahead of the game on a price standpoint after only 8 years, and have collected $4.50 in dividends in the meantime. HOWEVER, if you discount the company’s ability to pay dividends and grow book value by 6% annually (a number that I heard Buffett uses in his math), I get a “fair value” estimate of about $32.

So far, all are trading today at a premium to my calculation of “fair value”, except 2, Aflac and AT&T, who by my math are trading for about a 10% and 25% discount to FMV.

Not sure it’s a global stock market bubble, but I can see why the “value investors” out there are not thrilled with the current stock market valuation. Most of the companies I’ve been doing the math on appear to be overvalued by 25%-40%, if not more.

Granted, I’m only on Phase 1.0 of the analysis…it could very well be that AFL and AT&T are “value traps”–they might be overvalued as well. You can do your own math, you might come up with different numbers, but from my standpoint, this seems to be a good time to be cautious. However, if you have a long enough time horizon, you probably won’t be at risk of losing capital if you can wait it out…you just may not have great performance measured from today.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2014-04-05 18:58:59

I am turning 55 next month. Even so, I will still own stock mutual funds at 75 if I am still alive.of course my dollar cost averaging is going to stop once I retire.

You are basically spending effort proving what Jeremy Siegal, financial author, already said. There have been few 20 year periods outside of the GD, where the stocks finished that period lower than at the beginning.

Moreover, how many people decided to put every penny they had into stocks the day of black Monday in 1929? More likely, people have been investing for years. Their stocks did not go to zero. Some people merely got down to their cost basis. I have no fear of a 70% stock market drop, even if I retire on Monday.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 08:56:23

Aren’t you replicating the research efforts of thousands of Wall Street traders who follow the value investing recommendations that come from the work of Fama and French?

What makes you think your particular flavor of value investing research will uncover pearls that an army of quants overlooked?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2014-04-06 12:57:23

I dunno. What I know is I dollar cost averaged in my retirement funds starting in 1989. From zero to above $870,000 today. That averages to $34000 per year. And I certainly did not put $34,000 of new money in any year in my tax deferred plans.

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 14:02:18

According to Nobel Prize winner Eugene Fama, people who correctly correct collapses of bubbles are just plain lucky. Which I guess includes many of us on this board, who nailed it with the 2007-08 collapse of the U.S. housing bubble, and who are soon destined to once again nail it with the incipient collapse of the Chinese property bubble?

What a bunch of lucky guessers post here!

Episode 493: What’s A Bubble? (Nobel Edition)
November 01, 2013 9:34 PM ET
15 min 37 sec
Robert Shiller and Eugene Fama
The Associated Press

On today’s show, we talk to two of the three guys who won this year’s : Eugene Fama and Robert Shiller.

As we and everybody else when the award was announced, these two are a bit of an odd couple. Shiller is probably the most famous analyst of bubbles; Fama is probably the most famous skeptic of bubbles.

Here are a few quotes from our conversations with Fama and Shiller.

Fama:

The word “bubble” drives me nuts, frankly, because I don’t think there’s anything in the statistical evidence that says anybody can reliably predict when prices go down. So if you interpret the word “bubble” to mean I can predict when prices are going to go down, you can’t do it. …

I believe markets work. And if markets work those things shouldn’t be predictable. If I can predict that housing prices will go down, if the market’s working properly, they should go down now … If the market’s working properly the information should be in the prices.

In other words, Fama says, if stock prices get too high, then people should sell stocks, and the price should fall. Presto, no bubble.

But Shiller himself has predicted the two great bubbles of our time. As he told us:

You can have a fairly high degree of confidence. That’s what I felt in the stock market in late 1990s. I wrote the first edition of my book, “Irrational Exuberance,” then, because… and I was rushing to get it out. I told my publisher, Princeton, “Please get this out! Because I want this book out before the crash, not after.” And then again I felt that in the 2000s with housing bubble.

Fama:

So, what happens each time is the media goes in and finds somebody who predicted it. That person get’s anointed. You don’t go back and look at past predictions and see is this just luck.

So, was Shiller one of those people who was anointed by the media?

Oh yes. …

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2014-04-06 15:31:50

‘I don’t think there’s anything in the statistical evidence that says anybody can reliably predict when prices go down.’

I don’t see what the question of when prices go down has to do with anything. There’s either a bubble or not.

‘So if you interpret the word “bubble” to mean I can predict when prices are going to go down, you can’t do it’

I’m glad this came up on this post, because it’s about exactly what I am suggesting. My point is that if parabolic blow-outs often signal the peak of a bubble, we can then expect a the other side of it; a similar sharp decline. This actually is very indicative of a mania in human terms. Expectations build and become more popular, culminating in a hysterical outburst of price. The best explanation to me about how this is the peak is that the mania has now exhausted itself. It has pulled in the last fence sitters. The maximum number of participants convinced that trees grow to the sky then push prices as high as it can go. Then the greater fool concept takes hold.

This is all why motivation is so important. Are house buyers really speculators? Because if they are, be it Blackstone or Jingle Male, they will rush for the exit when appreciation ends. Or when each speculator makes that conclusion. This would explain the panic selling that accompanies sharp price drops.

Isn’t all this what we are seeing in China, Hong Kong and even Singapore? Doesn’t this explain the fact that inventory is surging in many cities in the US that have seen very sharp price spikes in the last 18-24 months?

I started this post with the idea that a parabolic blow-out may best explain what we are seeing right now. If it turns out to be true, hold onto your hats ladies and gentlemen.

 
Comment by Bill, Just south of Irvine
2014-04-06 17:29:46

Ben,

Do you think the housing crash in China, Hong Kong, and Singapore will also affect housing in the U.S.? I read that the Chinese have been scrambling to sell Hong Kong properties as new regulations have come into effect. Why aren’t these Chinese selling American properties?

 
Comment by Ben Jones
2014-04-06 18:07:38

We’ll find out what the motivation of the Chinese investors soon enough. Were they laundering money? Were they speculating? Both? If they were gambling on houses, I’d expect them to dump their California houses and Vancouver condos just like they started to do with their Hong Kong crap shacks.

 
Comment by Bill, Just south of Irvine
2014-04-06 18:09:31

Thanks Ben!

Got popcorn?

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 19:54:56

“I started this post with the idea that a parabolic blow-out may best explain what we are seeing right now. If it turns out to be true, hold onto your hats ladies and gentlemen.”

Here’s to predicting that Eugene Fama will use his academic bully pulpit to discredit those who predicted the incipient bust, the same way he did those who predicted the last one!

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 19:56:13

‘I don’t think there’s anything in the statistical evidence that says anybody can reliably predict when prices go down.’

That’s a strawman characterization of the existence of a bubble if ever there was one.

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 19:58:19

“Why aren’t these Chinese selling American properties?”

I don’t know. Why didn’t California investors dump their residential real estate holdings in Las Vegas, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Utah during the recent California housing collapse?

Oh wait…

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-04-06 20:04:34

“I don’t see what the question of when prices go down has to do with anything.”

When is no more pertinent than who or where. Hoards of Chinamen holding condos in Shanghai, Chinese speculators in CA, CA debt-donkeys in AZ and NV or hedge fund owned shanties in all 50 states.

The borrowed money is expected to be repaid. And all the debt defaulted on in the previous collapse has been rolled up and repacked into synthesysized pieces of crap wrap and backstopped 10 ways to Sunday. Not once has it been demonstrated that the previous debt instruments have been written off or made good on. It just went static and then enlarged and that’s where we are today. This is a fawkin’ mess of historic distortion proportions. It’s global.

 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-04-07 00:43:45

If I can predict that housing prices will go down, if the market’s working properly, they should go down now … If the market’s working properly the information should be in the prices.

Ah, so this fool actually believes in efficient markets!

Sure, in efficient markets, bubbles should never happen.

But bubbles do happen, as history has proven over and over again.

Ergo, the markets are not efficient; however beautiful a theory it appears to be, the theory does not match the reality.

 
 
 
 
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love me?"
2014-04-05 14:22:15

This hot stove is different.

 
 
Comment by Brandon Boise
2014-04-05 12:46:39

When I see this stuff I’, more and more convinced Boise is overpriced again:

Boise’s newest real estate boom tops the nation

http://www.ktvb.com/news/business/Boise-real-estate-sales-increase-tops-the-nation-246088441.html

In relation to the post, it begs the question of how are Boise wages paying for such a boom? Median income is less than $60k and one of our biggest job drivers are call centers - not exactly the type of people to buy $300k new homes. I’m currently reading Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point with the perspective of how it relates to bubbles - quite fascinating so far and can already speculate the same type of behavior which creates a bubble deflates it

Comment by Blue Skye
2014-04-05 13:11:47

“…it begs the question of how are Boise wages paying for such a boom?”

It doesn’t beg that question Brandon. There’s a credit bubble, not a wages bubble.

Go into debt and you are part of the problem. Be part of the solution. Don’t buy stuff that you cannot pay for.

Comment by Brandon Boise
2014-04-05 14:19:16

Wages and credit are still intertwined intertwined in terms of affordability. Though rates are low - wages still only go so far. I don’t anticipate the Fed to make any changes - I don’t feel qualified to speak too much on the matter but I’m sure there is pressure to keep the credit party going. Something psychological will need to happen to turn things around and it could happen quickly. The last time it seemed like a flash between the sky’s the limit and the crash.

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-04-05 19:10:45

With median prices falling along with rental rates, you’ll have to do the simple math to determine which is cheaper.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Rental Watch
2014-04-05 14:13:11

Could it simply be that the “median” earners are NOT those buying the median priced homes?

Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love me?"
2014-04-05 14:32:24

Yes, Rental Watch. There are 2 millionaires in Boise, and they are buying up like 100 median-priced homes every month, with the intent to rent them out at usurious rental rates. And they will succeed.

Comment by LolaLOL
2014-04-06 09:23:15

Potato millionaires!

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
Comment by Brandon Boise
2014-04-05 16:08:06

It could be those pesky Californians again….

 
 
Comment by rms
2014-04-05 22:20:06

“…how are Boise wages paying for such a boom?”

+1 Good question, Brandon. A: Your tax dollars at work.

 
Comment by Brandon Boise
2014-04-06 09:07:59

“The inventory dropped down so low during the big downturn that we just aren’t keeping up,” Smith said. “The builders are scrambling to pick up the pace and keep up with the demand but we’re just behind, so until we can get that volume up again, you’re just going to see, due to basic supply and demand, see an increase in prices in my opinion.”

In other words, wait for supply to catch up. Smith also predicted Feb 14 sales to outpace Feb 13 - they dropped.

 
 
Comment by Housing Analyst
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-04-06 03:21:46

or said another way:

Phoenix Housing Demand drives sales volume 6.8% higher than last year. Last year Phoenix Housing demand drove sales 8% higher than the year before.

Sounds like a healthy market. What is the problem?

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-04-06 04:33:52

Yet sales volume is 26% lower.

Your point?

 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-04-06 05:05:03

” What is the problem?”

It doesn’t say what you think it says. Sales volume is way off.

 
Comment by "Uncle Fed, why won't you love ME?"
2014-04-06 08:40:56

Inventory in Phoenix is up 88% from last year. I agree that this is a healthy environment for potential buyers who are willing and able to wait for the inevitable kkkkkkkkkkkkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeratttterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Comment by Ben Jones
2014-04-06 09:01:40

’sales volume 6.8% higher than last year’

This gets at my point. The sudden reversals into declines, in many cases steep declines in sales and even prices, is explained by a parabolic move. The Phoenix median price was up 70% in two years. Think about that.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by Bill, Just south of Irvine
2014-04-06 17:41:26

Hey H.A. I see the list price of these Phoenix homes has barely budged. But the bottom line, as you show, is the “sold in past year” figure. Those are the price of the comps. That is what really matters.

Looks like in early 2013 there were a lot of investors trying to cash in on higher gains and they have yet to lower their prices. The buyers have been leaving Phoenix in droves the last year.

Good work!

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 20:01:25

Those of us who have posted around here for any length of time (yourself included) have learned to recognize what happens just before a bubble pops: There is a combination of ever-higher prices with a sudden severe decline in the rate of transactions.

That just about sums up the current situation, doesn’t it?

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-04-06 20:16:34

Thank you.

With your background in equities, It’s probably far more clear to you than it is to me. I fail to see a distinction in how price/volume action in housing is any different than equities. Basic technical analysis.

 
 
 
Comment by taxpayers
2014-04-05 17:18:48

they quote a 2008 peak- re crashed in late 05 in most of the US.

Comment by LolaLOL
2014-04-06 09:27:16

Late 05 seems quite a bit early to me.

 
 
Comment by Colorado Renter
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 10:54:38

I guess it is time for the Fed to step up with additional support to keep U.S. housing prices propped up on a permanently-high plateau?

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 14:04:59

How on earth did propping up the housing market ever become part of the Fed’s ever-expanding mandate to begin with?

Comment by Neuromance
2014-04-06 17:04:46

The same reason bailing out LTCM over a few billion was presented to “avoid a meltdown of the financial system”:

“Some lessons on the rescue of Long Term Capital Management” (PDF) https://www.clevelandfed.org/research/POLICYDIS/pdp19.pdf

The paper is a hoot. The quotes are hilarious (e.g. “President Geithner, for example, argues (2006) that changes since LTCM have improved the stability and resilience of the financial system, reducing the “probability of systemic events.”)

The reason for bailouts ultimately is crony capitalism. The heads of LTCM were connected insiders. The LTCM bailout set a precedent for the 2008 bailouts. A Goldman CEO orchestrated the 2008 bailouts. The current Treasury secretary is a former Citigroup top executive. Do you think he’s going to do anything to reduce the power of the politicial-financial complex sector now, making a few hundred grand a year, seeing as he will go back to the FIRE sector to make many millions a year? Unlikely. Also, politicians wouldn’t stand for it, reducing the money flows - kickbacks in less polite terms - to their coffers from the FIRE sector.

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 20:02:53

That bailout certainly did set the stage for the megabailout of too-big-to-fail financial entities almost everywhere on the planet in the wake of the 2007-08 financial panic.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
 
Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-04-06 10:59:47

“Hardly enough to support and drive the kind of debt binging currently fueling the economic ‘recovery’ from the 2008 economic collapse. Things are different now -more precarious, less just. We really aren’t richer than we think.”

Wow—GREAT opinion piece, Ben.

I’m glad to know that someone really actually gets it.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-04-06 11:08:04

Revisit: 2013 Housing Analysis Chart

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img266/8180/stagesbubble.png

Here we are.

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 14:13:21

The market never did really bottom out, did it? Rather the bulls have so far been fully conditioned to believe that whenever housing declines, the government will step in to make the market go back up again.

Clearly it’s turtles all the way down.

 
 
Comment by Ella58
2014-04-06 11:19:04

Ben’s link on parabolic rises had a great segment on sugar prices in the 70s, and so far it’s the best parallel to our current global housing mania I have seen. Just replace “sugar” with “housing”:

“Consumption actually outpaced supplies in 1972, literally eating into sugar (”housing”) inventories over the next year…”

“There was evidence that some big industry users were stockpiling sugar (”housing”) in anticipation of higher prices. Soon people were grabbing sugar (”housing”) off the shelves in armloads to offset rising prices…”

“Even people who had never given the sugar (”housing”) futures markets a moment’s thought knew something was up… global demand for sugar (”housing”/”global safe havens”/”yield”) had exceeded supply, and before long the price of sugar (”housing”) headed for the roof.”

“Sugar (”housing”) traders had no idea where prices might be when the US’s long-standing price supports expired at the end of 1974…”

“Some blamed the high prices on a ‘scarcity of cheap labour to harvest sugarcane’ (”lack of new development”)… Others even suspected that both the Soviet Union and ‘Arab oil money’ (”rich foreigners”) had moved into the sugar (”housing”) futures markets, along with a rise in speculation by others looking to make money from rising prices.”

Basically, artificial demand caused by artificial scarcity leads to a temporary real scarcity which will inevitably correct with oversupply when the hoarders try to cash out.

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 14:14:49

Housing today = sugar yesterday…great analogy!

 
 
Comment by Muggy
2014-04-06 13:39:46

I forget, when did the first bubble peak? Was it Summer ‘06?

I’d say we’re at dead cat bounce peak.

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 14:17:27

Most people won’t get your comment, as dead cat bounces in the stock market play out over a matter of days, or at most months, due to a far more efficient market with publicly posted prices and centralized exchanges.

By comparison, observing the market adjustment process in housing is more boring than watching paint dry, and far too gradual to encroach on most people’s conscious awareness.

Comment by Ella58
2014-04-06 16:36:43

You can say that again - this housing crash has been a VERY boring half decade.

One of the problems with the ‘09-12 dip was that solvent sellers just couldn’t believe their houses weren’t worth their ‘07 peak price. So about 5 years into the crash, sellers were finally starting to capitulate and realize that maybe they should drop the price. Then the dead cat bounce comes along and there’s a bidding war pushing prices back up and above!

So if it took solvent sellers over 5 years to cave on unrealistic prices before, think how long it will take next time around now that their “housing always comes back” bias has been confirmed! Like watching paint dry indeed, and even slower than that!

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-04-06 18:11:06

Yet the alternative is to realize huge financial losses from which you’ll never recover.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-04-06 20:05:04

Exactly. It still amazes me just how many people out there willingly destroy their household financial stability by purchasing homes they cannot afford. It happens far and wide every day in SoCal!

 
 
 
 
 
Comment by Ben Jones
2014-04-08 10:16:53

test

 
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