茶香股谈 :: 阅读主题 - 2010 Housing Market Monitor:北美与欧洲
茶香股谈首页 茶香股谈
北美华人谈股论经学习交流的网上茶馆。
 
 帮助帮助   搜索搜索   会员列表会员列表   团队团队   注册注册 
 个人资料个人资料   登录并检查站内短信登录并检查站内短信   登录登录 

茶香股谈首页  -> 资料区 ->  财经新闻
2010 Housing Market Monitor:北美与欧洲
发表新主题     回复主题 分页 1, 2, 3, 4  下一页
阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题  
作者 正文
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-1-19 周二, 上午7:52    标题: 2010 Housing Market Monitor:北美与欧洲 引用回复


2010:狗日的房价(连载)

http://www.gutone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=6003&hilit=%E7%8B%97%E6%97%A5%E7%9A%84


Housing Collapse Cascade Pattern

* Volume drops precipitously
* Prices soften a bit
* Inventory levels rise slowly
* High-end home prices remain relatively steady for a brief while longer
* The real estate industry tries to convince everyone it's "business as usual" and homes are affordable because rates are low
* Bubble denial kicks in with media articles everywhere touting the "fundamentals"
* Stubborn sellers hold out for last year's prices as volume continues to shrink
* Inventory levels reach new highs
* Builders start offering huge incentives to clear inventory
* Some sellers finally realize (too late) what is happening
* Price declines hit the high-end
* Increasingly desperate sellers get creative with incentives, offering new cars, below market interest rates, trips, etc
* Gimmicks do not work
* Price declines escalate sharply at all price levels
* The Central Bank issues statements that housing is fundamentally sound
* Prices collapse, inventory skyrockets, and builders holding inventory go bankrupt

Some of those may happen simultaneously or in a different order, but the whole mess starts with a huge plunge in volume.


********************************************************************************************************

A List of RE Blogs:


1)Dr. Housing Bubble
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com

2)Global Property Guide
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/

3)Altos Research, a national real estate data collection and research firm
http://www.altosresearch.com/research/AZ/paradise-valley-real-estate-market

4)The Bigger Pockets: RE News Blog
http://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/

5)RE Smart Talk
http://www.realestatesmarttalk.com/

6)Housing Crash News
http://patrick.net/housing/crash.html#links

7)Housing Doom - He who defends everything defends nothing
http://housingdoom.com/

8)Calculated Risk (shemp推荐)
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com

9)市场评论兼房地产分析
http://republicaninvestor.com/


********************************************************************************************************

1)Top 20 Real Estate Blogs:
http://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/2006/08/25/top-35-real-estate-blogs/

2)Top 10 Real Estate Posts of the Day:
http://deansellsaz.com/category/top-posts/

3)海南板块: 跟踪三亚、博鳌地区房地产发展信息
http://www.gutone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=6229

4)黑鹰,小金,中国房子今年会降下来吗?(小金有关中国房地产的评论)
http://www.gutone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=6170

5)北美论坛首页 -> 经贸金融 -> 海南地产:最牛售楼小姐一年销13亿
http://www.naol.ca/forum/viewforum.php?f=9

6)彼得·希夫:为什么我们不应对金融危机感到意外
http://www.gutone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6836


********************************************************************************************************

Philip Greenspun's Weblog:http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/
A posting every day; an interesting idea every three months…

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行


上一次由纯属误会于2011-5-19 周四, 上午12:34修改,总共修改了5次
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-1-19 周二, 上午8:10    标题: 引用回复


买房还是租房计算器
housing is facing double dip, buy or rent?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html?ref=business


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices measures the residential housing market, tracking changes in the value of the residential real estate market in 20 metropolitan regions across the United States.

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行


上一次由纯属误会于2011-5-13 周五, 下午12:28修改,总共修改了1次
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-1-28 周四, 上午7:21    标题: 引用回复

Most expensive real estate markets in 2009
Source: Globalpropertyguide.com


Most expensive property markets
(based on 120 sq. m. apartment in city-centre )


    RANK COUNTRY CITY/REGION AVE PRICE (US$/sq. m.)
    1 Monaco Monte Carlo 47,578
    2 Russia Moscow 20,853
    3 UK London 20,756
    4 Japan Tokyo 17,998
    5 Hong Kong Hong Kong 16,125
    6 USA New York 14,898
    7 France Paris 12,122
    8 Singapore Singapore 9,701
    9 Italy Rome 9,166
    10 India Mumbai 9,163



Least expensive property markets
(based on 120 sq. m. apartment in city-centre)

    RANK COUNTRY CITY/REGION AVE PRICE (US$/sq. m.)
    112 Egypt Cairo 574
    111 India Bangalore 657
    110 Chile Concepción 669
    109 Ecuador Quito 820
    108 China Chengdu 999
    107 Nicaragua Managua 1,080
    106 Indonesia Jakarta 1,102
    105 Jordan Amman 1,150
    104 Peru Lima 1,154
    103 Chile Santiago 1,221


http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/09/cities-top-expensive-lifestyle-real-estate_0209_cities.html

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-2-16 周二, 下午8:43    标题: We're in for a housing shortage next year. 引用回复

Intelligent Investing Transcript
Transcript: Brian Wesbury
Steve Forbes, 02.15.10, 6:00 AM ET

V-Shaped Recovery

Steve Forbes: Well, Brian, good to have you with us. And congratulations on your book. Since I'm an author, I love promoting other books too.

Brian Wesbury: Yes.

Forbes: Very, very good book here.

Wesbury: Thank you.

Forbes: And let's start with that and then get into the core of your book, which is about what really caused the crisis. But first, your good news for the new year.

Wesbury: Right.

Forbes: The economy's going to grow.

Wesbury: Yes.

Forbes: The stock market's going to go up. Housing may be short. Tell us all of this.

Wesbury: Yeah, exactly. Well I do that we're in the V-shaped recovery. And I think there's a couple of reasons that that shocks a lot of people. No. 1, they became convinced we were in the Great Depression II. I never thought we were. And so, that panic that we had, we're bouncing out of it. No. 2, this isn't a great thing, but the Fed's super easy. And when you're floating on a sea of liquidity, that means the economy is going to boom.

And No. 3, I think people kind of sold short in their mind capitalism. They forget how robust and resilient the economy really is. And that's why I think we're in the middle of a V-shaped recovery. And it's going to last well into probably 2011 before government starts to erode at its edges. But I think we're in for a great year in terms of the stock market and a great year in terms of the economy as well.

Follow Intelligent Investing On Twitter.

Sign Up For The Daily Intelligent Investing Newsletter.

Valuing the Stock Market

Forbes: Now on the stock side, just an aside, you have a formula to determine true value of the stock market. Can you quickly explain it and then give us the shocking figure your formula shows the market's fair value truly is?

Wesbury: Yeah. Well I use a capitalized profits approach to the stock market. And that is I'm not going to take what the S&P 500 companies tell us their earnings are; I'm going to take what the IRS says that they reported. And you know, in this figure, there's all kinds of profits. But it's a good proxy for corporate profits. And then we divide it by the 10-year Treasury yield. That gives us a capitalized profits index. I then use statistics to make sure I'm not artificially overvaluing or undervaluing.

Forbes: What roughly are profits today, according to the IRS?

Wesbury: Well they're about a trillion dollars in the past year, roughly. And that's a good question--

Forbes: So you discount that by roughly 3.5%, the 10-year Treasury.

Wesbury: Exactly. And then that gives you, it gives you a number, but it's not necessarily equivalent to the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones. It's just an index. And then that goes back to the '50s. And then, if you tie the S&P 500, say, equal to that index in 1953 third quarter and then run it out, you can determine whether the market is overvalued or undervalued to date.

And what I do is I go to every single quarter in history. So I don't count on just picking one point in time, saying everything was perfect then. I look at an average. And what we're seeing right now, is if you use the current 10-year Treasury yield, which is about 3.8%, that the market should be worth 18,000 or 19,000, would be the Dow Jones industrial average.

Now I believe that the 10-year treasury is way too low. The Fed is artificially holding the yield curve down. So in my models, what I do is I put in a 5% rate to be conservative. And that leaves me with the market being undervalued by about 40 or 45% today easily. And don't forget, profits are growing right now, probably going to be up 25% in 2010. So what that says is that this stock market is undervalued by significant amounts right now.

Housing Shortage

Forbes: Now on the housing side, you also make the point that even though we hear about foreclosures, huge inventory, that given the natural rate of new houses we need, we're going to be running through that inventory.

Wesbury: Yeah, exactly. We need 1.5 million houses per year just to keep up with population growth. And then if you throw in, you know, fires and tear-downs and just worn-out properties, we need 1.6 million or more per year. Right now we're down to about six and a half, seven months' inventory, whether you look at new homes or existing homes. Yes, there's foreclosures coming into the market. But we're only starting right now.

The housing starts are between 500,000 and 600,000. We're starting one-third of the houses we need just to keep up with population growth. And that can't last. I think one of the secret investments, if you will, over the next decade is going to be housing. It is extremely cheap, inflation is on the way. But people are running away from it. You know, it's that old adage, "When there's blood in the streets, that's when you invest." And this is the time, I think, for real estate.

Forbes: Now this gets to something very important, everyone, including you make reference to '75, '76, even the '30s. You get these monster comebacks, monster rallies. Doesn't mean we're on the right course, but you do get these surge upwards. Are we in a '76 kind of situation? Is this just really an inflationary bubble that's going to make us look so good? And are people onto it? Are we still going to get deceived even though the experiences of the past should tell us, "This isn't for real?"

Wesbury: Right. And that's a great point. You know, in '72, '73, '74 was one of the worst bear markets in history. And also, if you go back to the '70s, we put in Medicare and Medicaid and welfare was expanded dramatically, food stamps were put in.

Forbes: EPA.

Wesbury: EPA. All the regulations that we had. We went off the gold standard--well, we closed the gold window. Wage and price controls, all that horrible stuff was going on in the '70s. And yeah, we still had this boom in '75, '76. And I do believe that people understand monetary policy in a way. But when you float on a sea of liquidity, you can't help but see asset values go up. And so, what I've been suggesting to people is to make hay while the sun shines, so to speak.

Now, when we get to 2011, if we have passed a health care bill, if we pass cap and trade, if tax hikes have gone into place--big tax hikes, you know, gone back to the pre-Bush tax rates--then we're gonna have a price to pay. But I don't think it's going to be like a W. It's not like we're going to have all these gains and then we're just going to give them all back again.

Even in the '70s, we went up and then we sort of, kind of flattened out. We have lots of inflation, which eroded people's asset values. And so I think there's going to be plenty of time, in other words, for us to realize that things are getting weaker. So I'm a short-term bull but I'm a long-term worrier. And I think there's a big mistake here.

Forbes: So what you're saying here is that you've gotta be nimble.

Wesbury: Yes. I think you have to be very nimble. But one of the things that is disturbing to me these days is that lots of people are taking their conservative political views and arguments; they should be making moral arguments against big government, Steve, like you do. But instead, they're translating it into, "If Obama's president and he's talking about health care, that means the stock market's going to go down, so buy gold."

I think that's just wrong. You have to separate the political arguments from the financial investor, economic arguments. And I try to do that. I'm a conservative. I don't think nationalized health care is a good idea. I don't think cap and trade's a good idea. I don't think tax hikes are a good idea. But I also realize that in the short-term, even though those things might be coming, we can still have a rally in the midst of those bad policies.

Inflation and Jobs

Forbes: Now, on the inflationary side, you say you people are underestimating--

Wesbury: Right.

Forbes: The amount of inflation that's going to be coming in the next two or three years, a weak dollar. What's that going to mean on unemployment?

Wesbury: Right. Here's the interesting thing, is we're at 10% unemployment. And you know, please don't misunderstand my optimism about the economy as believing everything's perfect. There's too many people unemployed. I mean, no one in their right mind would argue that that's not a problem. The thing that's really going to hurt us over time is that the size of government has grown. We have gone from 18% of GDP, government spending was 18% of GDP when George Bush took office. It is now on a long-term path of 23 to 24% of GDP, which means the underlying rate of unemployment in the economy is going to be higher. The bigger the government is, the smaller the private sector is, the less opportunity there is and the higher the unemployment rate. So we're going to have a declining unemployment rate as the economy gets better.

But it's not going back to 5%. And the rate of inflation, as you pointed out, is going up. There's no doubt about that. And that will also hurt the long-term jobless rate as well. When you have high inflation and big government, that's a recipe--just look at Europe, I mean, in a way. They haven't always had high inflation. But they're had big government. And they've had 8% or 9% or 10% unemployment for a very long time.

Forbes: One of the points you make in your book is that the more government spending, the more unemployment.

Wesbury: Right. Exactly. And that's it. Europe is--

Forbes: Goes against the whole myth that we get in the media.

Wesbury: Right. Well that's it, they, you know--Cash for Clunkers is a perfect example of this, right? You know, you can see the car sales increase. They look great. You know, car sales are going through the roof. But we don't realize is that they had to take the money to give cars away, basically, or big chunks of car away from somebody else, which means there's a hairdresser in Seattle who doesn't have a job because they're selling more cars in Detroit. And no one ever understands that, because it's what Bastiat called "the seen vs. the unseen." And we always forget about the unseen, because by definition--

Forbes: Well, one of the points you make, just the real experience is that from '60 to '79, government grew and unemployment grew.

Wesbury: That's exactly right.

Forbes: That even when you had a boom time the unemployment never reached as low as it did the previous time.

Wesbury: Right.

Forbes: And then we had a 20-year period of the opposite, government became relatively smaller and unemployment reached a low of what, 3.9%?

Wesbury: 3.9%. That's exactly right. I mean, you can see it so clearly, as the government grew in the '60s and the '70s, the unemployment rate went up. And then Reagan and Clinton, believe it or not, shrank the size of government relative to GDP and the unemployment rate went down to 3.9%. Now it's on its way back up. And we will not get back the old lows unless we shrink the size of government.

Forbes: So conservatives are sort of making mistakes saying that this year, 2010, will be a disaster.

Wesbury: Right.

Forbes: They should say we've got an inflationary boom.

Wesbury: Right.

Forbes: Short-term, it's like getting a fix of drugs or bottle of booze.

Wesbury: Right. Exactly.

Forbes: But it's not going to prevent the hangover.

Wesbury: Right, exactly. I think conservatives have made a couple of mistakes. And you know these very well. And that is many of them supported TARP back in 2008. And now they're saying, "Well, big government hurts." And what I ask them is, "Well, wait a minute, last year you voted for big government. You wanted but you argued for big government. This year you're arguing against it. That means your big government's good and their big government's bad?"

And then that, you know, so the other thing is, is that the more they argue that the economy's going to be bad this year, the more they will build the case that the stimulus worked. So I think they're walking in to a corner, a trap. And I try to warn them about that in this book.

Cause of the Crisis

Forbes: Now, let's get to the real nubbin of the thing. And that is the cause of the disaster.

Wesbury: Right.

Forbes: You know the rap, that it was free markets going on a binge. And tell us the real cause and then more specifically, answer Ben Bernanke in the paper talking about why it wasn't the Fed, it was deregulation or new exotic instruments, exotic mortgages that created this whole thing. First, what do you see are the core causes of the crisis?

Wesbury: Sure. I mean everyone I think that's going to watch us talk today understands the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and CRA and I think that's pretty well understood. The government got involved in government wanted to move people in houses. So we did everything we could. But one of the things, and I think the most important force, was when the Federal Reserve drove interest rates to 1% back in the early 2000s.

Forbes: By the way, on Fannie and Freddie, isn't it true, does the government, as Fanny and Freddie expanded more and more they, in effect, forced private banks to go out on the more riskier curve because that was the only territory left for them?

Wesbury: Yeah, that's exactly right. The bigger Fannie and Freddie got, the banks could not compete. Because Fannie and Freddie have the implicit guarantee of the government, which means they can borrow cheaper than banks could in the open market. Therefore they could offer products at lower yields and still make a spread that was wider than banks.

The banks had to go into the subprime arena to compete. That was the only place left for them, in a sense. Because Fannie and Freddie had taken out the profit margins in the conventional mortgage market. It just didn't exist. And when you add in there the fact that the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to 1%, there's this idea that somehow capitalism failed, you know, in 2007 or in this housing bubble, that greed and stupidity and ignorance. And what I make the case, in my book and elsewhere, and you have also, is that when you have 1% interest rates people make decisions that they wouldn't otherwise make. And you're creating a mirage. The Federal Reserve created a mirage that made it look like money was cheaper than it was, that the house that I wanted to buy was within my grasp.

And if we would have had interest rates that were more in the 4%, 4.5%, 5% range, we never would have had the housing bubble. And that's why I think Ben Bernanke's argument that the Fed didn't create the bubble is just a bunch of malarkey. It's just not true. One percent interest rates were the driving force that caused all of this.

Forbes: Now, so the natural rate of interest in your mind is the nominal growth of GDP, not real growth or some other formula. Just take the dollar, nominal growth.

Wesbury: Right, that's it. It's very simple. It's just, you know, this comes from Ludwig Von Mises and I guess you could throw Hayek in there, although he was the student. But Mises and Fiher and Bixel, they all talked about a natural rate of interest. So you say, "What is the natural rate of interest?" It sort of comes out of the economy.

And I said, "Well let's just take nominal GDP. It's pretty simple. It's the average growth rate in the economy." Some companies boom--Google grows 80% a year; some company are, you know, losing business. New York Times Co., shrinking 10% a year, whatever that is. On average they're growing at nominal GDP. If I can borrow way below that, then what you're going to see is an arbitrage exists.

If the Fed holds rates too low--they're going to, cause it's going to--what that signals is that the Fed is too easy. If they hold them way above, they're too tight. So I think is it's nominal GDP. And if you use that model and you go back and you look at the early 2000s, it is very clear. John Taylor's rule is great, but he relies on a formula and a lot of estimates. I just like the simple GDP rule. And by the way, right now it says the Fed is way too easy and that's why gold is going up and commodity prices are going up. The dollar is weakening. All of that is the aftermath of the Fed holding interest rates below the natural rate.

No Securitized Assets

Forbes: And a side question on that. You talk about housing being short. But given what they have done to the mortgage market, I mean, who's going to buy a mortgage-backed security when you don't know where you stand if something goes wrong?

Wesbury: Right. And we are not. Here's one of my beliefs. And I don't think we've talked about this. But it's that we will not have a securitized asset market back, when we securitize auto loans and credit card loans, until we kill--bury under six feet of earth--mark-to-market accounting. Because if I'm an institution, I won't if that rule is even anywhere there, they can come back to life and come get me, I don't want to own any of those.

Forbes: Before we get to mark-to-market, which is the 800-pound villain in this thing, on the mortgage side, in terms of buying, even if you wanted to buy a mortgage-backed security, you're an individual, you don't care about mark-to-market. The Fed, hasn't it muddied where you stand--

Wesbury: Oh yeah.

Forbes: If something goes wrong, you don't know whether you're going to be treated like a home equity loan. And so why did I lend at five when I could have charged 10?

Wesbury: Exactly. Well, I mean, the courts have become involved. The government has become involved. The Fed has bought hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgages and artificially lowered rates. So if a bank wants to enter the mortgage market, the only buyer is the Federal Reserve. So you're absolutely right that there's this kind of an artificialness--that's not a great word--to the whole mortgage market today, which is of concern.

And when we get out there in 2011 that's an issue we have to deal with too. But I guess there's two ways I look at this. We're operating right now at 500,000 starts a year. There are banks that will do mortgages for their best customers and the government is getting involved in other customers. And that's easy to do. I mean, and so I think everything above that, I mean we could have a 20% gain in housing with just a couple hundred thousand starts. So as that begins to get worked up, as those markets ease up and free up, I think the growth in housing can still be there, even though the market's muddy.

Housing Collapse

Forbes: And one other thing, before mark-to-market, make your point that housing had already collapsed by the time 2008 had rolled around.

Wesbury: OK. Yeah, well, you know, new home and existing home sales peaked in 2005. They were already down by 40% before '08 ever happened. Housing prices peaked in '06. They were down, I forget the numbers, but 35%, 40% by the time '08 rolled around. So here we were, everybody said that this crisis had started in '08. It didn't. And by the way, even though housing was down that much, GDP was still growing in '06 and '07 and early '08.

Forbes: Which makes your point: even though housing is a huge thing in people's balance sheets--

Wesbury: Right.

Forbes: In terms of economic activity?

Wesbury: It's about 5% of the economy. That's about it. And you know, I'm not trying to dismiss it, but it's just not that big of a part of GDP.

Mark-to-Market's the Culprit

Forbes: Now, let's get to the thing that still overhangs everything today, mark-to-market accounting.

Wesbury: Yeah. You know, I think the best way to think about this is you go back to the '30s. And we had mark-to-market accounting. One of the things I discovered in my research was--and Bill Isaac was the one that turned me on to this--but I found Milton Friedman's book The Great Contraction. In there he spends a lot of time on mark-to-market accounting.

And he shows how it was the cause of many bank failures--in fact, most bank failures in the early 1930s, which led to this kind of snowballing effect. In 1938, FDR and the administration then got rid of mark-to-market accounting and voila, the economy starts to improve almost immediately. I think there's a lot of things that were going on. The Fed got easy. It wasn't just World War II. But mark-to-market, as I look back in history, I've now added that to my mix of what brought us out of the Great Depression.

Forbes: Now in essence mark-to-market accounting means that for regulatory purposes of a bank, it must mark up or down the value of all of its assets, the mortgages, what?

Wesbury: Well it depends on which kind of bank and what kind of assets. But what was happening, there's really two columns here. So, the bank has to take the value of assets that are in a certain silo, which they are forced to mark to market, which a level-three asset, that was one of the rules that was added at the very end; the minute it's a level three, it has to be marked to market. And how you go from a level one or a level two to the level three is to have a downgrade. And so the minute when S&P starts to downgrade, then the asset's a level three. Now they have to mark it to market. And the market had dried up. There was no market for these assets. And I think, I believe, by the way, that the accounting profession pushed mark-to-market accounting.

Forbes: They said, "Take liability."

Wesbury: Yeah, that's right, after Arthur Andersen. But what we did is we held an accounting firm liable for the actions of the company, of a few people. And so the accounting professions says, "Well, we're gonna get rid of all of this objectivity. We're just gonna be subjective about everything and therefore we're gonna get three bids. And that's how we're gonna values securities. "And if there's, you know, and that's the way it is. And we're gonna get three bids." And what that did was it divorced the value of assets from any cash flow. And I believe that's when we started to see a problem snowball. You know, if you did the list--WaMu, Wachovia, Lehman, Bear, AIG--

Forbes: In other words, is it fair to say that most of the losses were book losses rather than actual cash losses?

Wesbury: Absolutely. AIG is probably--

Forbes: But these institutions actually had positive cash flows?

Wesbury: Yes. They had positive--

Forbes: But yet went broke?

Wesbury: Yes. They had positive cash flows. But this accounting rule opened up a grand canyon in their balance sheets that they couldn't fill. And by the way--

Forbes: So in essence, even if a person was still making a payment on the mortgage, the way the thing worked, especially with packages, you had to mark it down even though it was still money good.

Wesbury: That's exactly right. And that's, I use the--

Forbes: Now you also make the point that if we had done that 20 years ago, when we had a banking crisis, S&Ls, Latin American loans, we'd have destroyed at least the top eight commercial banks in this country.

Wesbury: At least. And they had 260%, the biggest eight banks had 260% of their capital lent to Latin America. And that debt was trading at 10 cents on the dollar. They were all gone. You know, one of the pieces of research that I did for this book is I went back to the early '80s. By the way, those banking problems were caused by an easy Fed too. They were holding interest rates too low.

Banks lent to Latin America, to farmers, to oil. Penn Square, if we remember that. And I added up all the problem loans that we had then. It was 6% of GDP. At the beginning of this whole the current financial issues, the subprime alt A it was about 3.5% to 4% of GDP. So our problems this time around were smaller than our problems in the early 1980s. But mark-to-market accounting is what took a smaller problem. It was still a problem, and a relatively large one, but turned it into a catastrophe. That's the mixture. The Fed was too easy and--

Forbes: Now where does it stand now? They modified it.

Wesbury: Right.

Forbes: You count the congressional hearing in March, which turned the stock market around. Of course.

Wesbury: By the way, isn't that interesting that they did TARP, they did two government stimuluses, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to zero, starting buying commercial paper. All of those things, none of that turned the market around until they changed mark-to-market accounting. That was the, to the day, when the stock market bottomed and started going up. To me it's so obvious how big of a problem that was.

Forbes: Now what they did was they didn't suspend it or get rid of it. They, in effect, said, "If you have an illiquid market," which sort of means this thing is sort of still lurking out there.

Wesbury: Yeah, exactly. What they say is if you're receiving payment on the mortgage, then you can value it at that cash flow at par, basically. But we reserve the right to kind of go, you know, but they allowed banks to use cash flow. By the way, if you sit down and talk with FASBY, and you know this, they will say, "Well it was always that way. It was misapplied. The rule was misapplied."

See, I think one of the problems with securitized assets, they're not coming back until we kill this thing. I believe we have to suspend mark-to-market accounting fully, forever. We learned this in the '30s. We've learned it again today. We need to get of it. And until we do, I think it still lurks. And as a result, I don't think the securitized marketplace will come back. But what's fascinating--here's another thing--that once they change mark-to-market accounting, all of the sudden all the TARP funds got paid back within a year. Banks raised $100 billion in private capital, no more--

Forbes: Not to mention real estate investment trusts came back from the dead.

Wesbury: REITs came back from the dead. No major institution has gone bankrupt since. I mean, a bunch of little ones. And they're still going to continue to go. I mean, I'd be careful about little, because some of the institutions are bigger. But not the key ones, that are sort of part and parcel of our financial system. But we're gonna lose 400 or 500 banks. What people don't remember, too, is in the '80s we lost 2,755 banks in S&Ls. And yet the economy grew. We can grow even though banks are going under.

Not Consuming What You Think

Forbes: Now, one final thing. You deal with the consumption myth.

Wesbury: Yeah.

Forbes: That we're a nation binging on consumption. And you make the point, "No, if you look at the increase in consumption in the last 20 or 30 years, almost all of it is health care and education."

Wesbury: Right, exactly. And you know, it's interesting. It is. We went from--I forget the numbers exactly--from roughly 62% of GDP up to 72% of GDP as consumption's share of GDP. And over 95% of that is made up by increases in our health care expenditures and education expenditures. Education went from about 1.5% to 2.5% of GDP. Health care expenditures went from, I forget, but I think it was about 7% to 16% of GDP.

And that, you can think of those as investments. I mean, literally, they're for your life. They last a lifetime. They're not consumption. And so this idea that we've been profligate spenders and all--

Forbes: By the way, probably not a coincidence--

Wesbury: Just doesn't make any sense.

Forbes: That health care is not truly a free market.

Wesbury: Right. That's exactly right. Well, and Milton Freidman is--he always said, "The more the government [was] involved, the higher the cost and the lower the price." By the way, education too. So those are the two areas that you could argue that we have the biggest problems with in society. And those are two areas that government has the most involvement in. Higher costs, lower quality and they eat up more of GDP, where as spending on care and food and computers and all of that has gone down as a share of GDP. Those are the two areas where we keep spending more and more.

Forbes: Brian, thank you very much. It's not as bad as you think.

Wesbury: Thank you, Steve.

Forbes: Thank you.

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-2-16 周二, 下午8:45    标题: 引用回复

瞎评论两句上面那个关于两年后房子的报告


报告有些事实是对的,结论有些对的,但是基本上不对。

对的部分是针对新房子,因为这三年不仅盖得少,而且规划的少。开发大片新房子的周期很长,从申请市政规划开始,到盖好以及配套设施建设要三年以上时间。(自己买个旧房子推倒重建不算)。所以,如果明年经济好起来,会发现新房建筑非常滞后。

但是,从房子数量不足得出紧缺的结论不对。美国的房子拥有率很不平衡,在全美有70%左右,而在加州只有20%不到,在湾区只有10%不到。在纽约也是类似。几十年都是如此,并不因为紧缺房价就要上涨,因为最终有一个是否能承受的起点问题。在北加州好一点区,好一点的房子没有1.5M,想都不用想,而同样大小和新旧水平的房子在Mid Atlantic,VA和MD的好区只要500K。事实上,北加州的房子在10%的拥有率,以及很高的价位已经平衡了,并不因为90%的人没有房子就能把房价抬上去,因为这里面80%的人根本一辈子买不起那里像样的房子。这种现象在欧洲存在了更长的时间,在巴黎和威尼斯,大部分人虽然“梦想”买房子,但是,大部分人在行动上根本不做买房子的财务安排,因为他们的祖辈已经告诉他们这是徒劳的。

事实上,过去的一年旧金山湾区1.5M以上的房子还在慢跌,这个趋势没有停,transaction数量很多在short sale上。如果你听地产专家的话,它们总是说现在是机会,但是,事实是,房价并没有像他们说的那样有起色。


************************************************

这个报告有点矛盾的地方:一方面,房子供应跟不上人口增长;另一方面,MBS只有FED在买.FED很快就不买了,到时候谁来提供mortgage?

没人提供mortgage的问题关键在于cost.如果利率10%,自然有人提供mortgage,可是有几家付得起10%?

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行


上一次由纯属误会于2010-6-24 周四, 上午7:29修改,总共修改了1次
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-2-16 周二, 下午8:48    标题: 引用回复

今年下半年买房,我觉得不会亏.但是短期不一定赚钱.

那位老兄讲的有点道理,但是我对房市的理解和他有点出入.现在新房建的少,是对过去(05-07年)建房太多的修正.让supply和demand拉回平衡点.美国的房屋拥有率前几年有点偏高,也需要修正.前几年很多收入一般的人靠95%以上贷款炒房,这些人要被flush出房东市场.再加上高失业率将持续,决定了房市foreclosure不会很快停止.但是每次矫枉需要过正,所以到一定的程度,房子会短缺确实是有可能的.真的到了那个地步,房市就会有一波持续至少数年的涨势.但我怀疑这会在2011年发生.

房子和股票不一样,时间的把握上没有那么精准的必要.现在形势不明,我就拿住不动.等形势明朗了,再加仓进货.

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行


上一次由纯属误会于2010-2-16 周二, 下午8:49修改,总共修改了1次
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-2-16 周二, 下午8:49    标题: 引用回复

买房要注意的事项:


不是good deal不买.

不了解的社区,地域不买.

不容易出租的地区/价位不买.

War Zone,再便宜也不买.

negative cashflow太多的不买.最好有positive cashflow.如果没有,多放点down payment就有了.

买了房别割肉!一定要拿住,赚钱了才卖!如果因为以后可能搬家丢工作等等原因必须割肉的,前面就别买.

只要做足了research,有holding power,买房几乎没有不赚钱的.



关于现金买房
来源: texastrader 于 10-06-23 22:24:38


买房时出现金offer,对于卖方来说,好处是deal fall apart的几率比较小,并且一般可以比较快的close。基于这一点认识,再根据当地的市场趋势,和卖方是否急于成交,或是否非卖不可,才能决定出价。

一般来说,如果当地房价在上涨,并且卖方不急于卖,或是卖不卖都是两可的,那么你出现金还是贷款,没有区别。如果房价平稳或下降,银行在卖房(REO或 short sale),那么你用现金有一定的竞争优势。至于优势有多大,和本地行情有关。比如在我这里,一般300K的房子,用现金有5K的优势。我买过几个在这个价位的,和卖方(银行)的broker有充分的沟通,成功失败的例子都有,最后基本确定差别在这个数目。

买房子一定要充分利用Realtor的帮助。如果你觉得和你的Realtor有利益冲突,不能相信他或她的话,或者觉得他或她不诚实,那么就换一个 Realtor。如果你觉得没有可靠的Realtor可以用,那么不要在那里买投资房,特别是在外地。出价多少这种问题,一定要和你的Realtor商量。在整个房地产投资过程中,出价是最重要的一环。投资成败几乎有一半以上在你出价的时候已经定了。另外,在外地购投资方,一定要先找好可靠的管理公司。如果没有找好,或不确定是否可靠,就不要买。

很多人对于现金买房有偏见。认为买房子一定要用leverage,也就是贷款,才能占到省税的好处。其实不然。事实上,现金买住宅投资房在美国是及其普遍的。拥有大量住宅投资房的投资人,很多都是用现金买房的。经营投资房就好比是一个生意,贷款利息是你的cost之一。任何cost,都会减少你的利润,所以任何cost,都是理所当然可以抵税的。所以贷款利息和维修费用一样,可以抵税,但并不是一个国税局给你的benefit。这一点和自己住的房子贷款利息可以抵税不是一个概念。那么投资房有什么省税的优惠呢?就是折旧。你买一个房子出租,可以把房子的价值(扣除地的价值)按照27.5年来折旧。相当于每年有3.63%房价的部分可以抵税。这一部分的钱其实你并没有花出去,却可以抵税。这个好处是显而易见的。当然卖房后交税的时候你要吐一部分回去,但那是另外一个问题。

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行


上一次由纯属误会于2010-6-24 周四, 上午7:27修改,总共修改了1次
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-2-16 周二, 下午8:52    标题: 引用回复


这个。。。房市没完,房价还有的跌。。。



_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行


上一次由纯属误会于2010-8-25 周三, 下午4:28修改,总共修改了2次
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-2-16 周二, 下午9:02    标题: 引用回复

房子 PR is like stock PE ratio:


旧金山湾区 PR(price/rent) is like AMZN stock PE ratio.

When it's too high, and with limited growth potential, nobody would like to buy.

AMZN revenue/income still can grow around 30% a year, the high end house in Bay Area cannot grow at that rate.

Just look at this house, http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/apa/1595119156.html

Rent is around $4K. The price from zillow is over 1.5M. $1.5M cash for just for 3% investment return should be much better than this rent business when you consider all other cost(property tax, insurance, and headache to deal with tenant).

Overall house price all depends on local job market and population.

Will Bay Area have another booming, like semiconductors in 1980s and internet/dotcom in 1990s ? I really doubt. If it won't, then the house price in Bay Area won't be able to go up crazy.

Don't forget the fricking Prop14 by Reagan, just as wonderful as JFK bringing union into public sector.

Sure we also have 赵紫阳的双轨制。

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-2-18 周四, 上午7:51    标题: 引用回复

全美国房价最贵的小镇
搜狐房产 2010-02-18


在美国,穷人住在大城市里,中产阶级住在郊区,富人则住在小镇。美国的小镇是富人的天堂,空气好、环境好,社区也好,而房价也不低。美国各个州都有不少这种富人区,全美国房价最高的100个小镇主要集中在纽约、加州、华盛顿州、佛罗里达州、新泽西州、夏威夷州和马里兰州。

这些富裕的小镇的共同特点是临近海滩、公园或是高山,与大自然美景紧密相连。住在这些小镇的居民收入从3万多美元至20万美元不等,当然他们的收入不包括股票收益、拥有的其他固定资产以及在公司中股份分红等。下面我们看一下美国房价最贵的12个小镇:

1、纽约的Sagaponack,该镇只有582人,居民的家庭中位收入为5万4,048美元,小镇的中位房价是442万1,458美元。这座小镇面对大西洋,居民可以自由自在地享受游艇、划船、打高尔夫球、棒球和骑马的户外运动,这座小镇因此也成为美国房价最高的小镇。

2、佛罗里达州的Jupiter Island, 该镇有居民875人,居民的家庭中位收入为20万美元,小镇的中位房价是362万零310美元。这座小镇最能体现佛罗里达风光,因此许多明星象老虎伍兹都在这里购买度假房屋。

3、华盛顿州的Hunts Point,这座小镇位于西雅图郊区有居民437人,居民的家庭中位收入为17万9,898美元,小镇的中位房价是293万零863美元。

4、加州的Los Altos Hills, 这座小镇位于圣荷西郊区有居民7,981人,居民的家庭中位收入为17万3,570美元,小镇的中位房价是260万2,450美元。

5、加州的Fairbanks Ranch,这座小镇位于圣地亚哥郊区有居民2,244人,居民的家庭中位收入为20万美元,小镇的中位房价是255万2,340美元。这座小镇居民住宅占地面积为142英亩,而高尔夫球场、公园等户外场所占地达643英亩。

6、纽约的Water Mill,这座小镇位于纽约长岛附近有居民2,137人,居民的家庭中位收入无统计数据,小镇的中位房价是223万8,676美元。

7、加州的 Woodside,这座小镇位于旧金山郊区有居民5,316人,居民的家庭中位收入为4万4,449美元,小镇的中位房价是217万7,640美元。这座小镇居民最常见的户外运动是骑马和骑自行车。

8、纽约的 Bridgehampton, 这座小镇有居民2,137人,居民的家庭中位收入为5万4,896美元,小镇的中位房价是208万1,717美元。该小镇是东岸美国名人最喜欢居住的小镇之一、电视台新闻主播、球队大老板等不少在这里拥有豪宅。

9、加州的Rolling Hills, 这座小镇位于洛杉矶郊区有居民1,921人,居民的家庭中位收入为20万美元,小镇的中位房价是192万5,615美元。

10、佛罗里达州的Fisher Island, 这座小镇位于迈阿密郊区有居民467人,居民的家庭中位收入为20万美元,小镇的中位房价是187万6,462美元。

11、加州的Rancho Santa Fe, 这座小镇位于圣地亚哥郊区有居民3,412人,居民的家庭中位收入为20万美元,小镇的中位房价是184万3,950美元。

12、加州的Ross, 这座小镇位于旧金山郊区有居民2,372人,居民的家庭中位收入为10万2,015美元,小镇的中位房价是183万7,514美元。

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-2-21 周日, 上午8:37    标题: 引用回复

Foreclosures in U.S. Set Record as Unemployment Thwarts Housing Recovery
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20603037&sid=aHLH3zOdh4ro

A record number of Americans were in danger of losing their homes in the fourth quarter, even as new delinquencies declined.

Loans in foreclosure rose to 4.58 percent of all mortgages, while those more than 90 days overdue -- the point at which lenders usually begin the process of seizing a property -- climbed to 5.09 percent.

Government efforts to prevent foreclosures have been thwarted by the biggest employment contraction since the Great Depression. U.S. companies shed more than 7 million jobs since December 2007.

U.S. home prices began declining in 2006 after reaching a peak of almost four times the nation’s median household income, an increase that had stretched the ability of many buyers to meet mortgage payments.

Unable to refinance, the least creditworthy borrowers started defaulting on mortgages as interest rates adjusted higher and their monthly payments ballooned.
The rate of subprime-mortgage delinquencies more than doubled in the two years ended last quarter, triggering $1.7 trillion of losses and writedowns for financial companies that invested in mortgage bonds.

Today’s MBA report(The Mortgage Bankers Association) showed payments overdue by 30 days or more for all types of mortgages fell to a seasonally adjusted 9.47 percent in the fourth quarter from 9.64 percent in the prior three months, the first drop since 2007’s first quarter.

The delinquency rate for prime loans fell to 6.73 percent from 6.84 percent, and the share of subprime late payments fell to 25 percent from 26 percent.

“We usually have a spike in fourth-quarter delinquencies because of heating bills and Christmas bills, but this time we had a sizable decrease,” Brinkmann said. “It’s not the end of the crisis, but it looks like a big problem may not be getting much bigger.”

Obama’s Plan

The administration’s primary anti-foreclosure plan, the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, resulted in 116,000 permanent loan modifications by the end of January, compared with a goal of as many as 4 million by December 2012, the Treasury Department said in a Feb. 17 report. In addition, 830,438 trial modifications were under way.

HAMP lowers mortgage payments to about one-third of a borrowers’ income by reducing interest, lengthening repayment terms and deferring principal repayments.

About one in every five U.S. homeowners with a mortgage is in so-called negative equity.

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-2-21 周日, 下午9:08    标题: 引用回复

美国房地产泡沫改变未来地产投资方式
CNBC


美国正在从最严重的房地产危机中慢慢走出来,这次危机还意味着居住郊区这种生活方式的结束。随着人口分布经济的变化,未来郊区的房地产只会下降不会上升。

在题名为“下一个世纪美国房地产”的调查报告中,作者John McIlwain将房屋需求按人口统计学分为四类:上了年纪的婴儿潮,年轻一些的婴儿潮,婴儿潮的下一代(所谓Y一代),移民。

这份报告说在未来一个世纪里上了年纪的婴儿潮人士基本不会搬家。那些迟迟未卖郊区房子的人将会发现房子价格一路下降,可能会比按揭数量还低,好比一个陷阱。多数人退休之后会希望尽量住得离子孙近一些,而不是越搬越远。

婴儿潮人士对于居住社区的要求与他们的上一代是不同的,上一代人退休之后基本生是在家里朝九晚五,而婴儿潮是朝五晚九。

年轻一些的婴儿潮人士面临的是另一种挑战,他们离退休还有几十年,孩子还住在家里-原因可能是尚未离家或者离家之后又回来居住。目前来讲这些人的郊区的房价已经“在水下”,即使房价未跌太多的房子也很难卖出。年轻婴儿潮的下面一代是年龄在30-40的X一代,这一代人基数小,所以年轻婴儿潮很难把房子卖给他们。另外,X一代喜欢较小的户型,更城市化,而且面临的经济挑战更多。

因此,年轻婴儿潮人士小房换大房不会推高房价,虽然现在有些房地产商说豪华大屋的销售有所上涨,但是在没有更多年轻婴儿潮人士购买的基础上,这个说法还难以确证。由于高失业率和个人收入减少,Y一代买房的购买力明显降低。

本来房地产市场是要靠新一代购买来支持的,但是Y一代中有很多人仍然住在父母家,人数比上一代多两倍到三倍。

Y一代对于房地产市场的影响应该比X一代要小,他们作为租客的时间要比他们的父母和祖父母要长,同时他们多数会选择居住在城市里。

移民(包括合法与非法)占美国人口的13%,移民通常喜欢居住在同一社区。在过去的20年里移民的社区从城市中心转移到了靠近郊区的地方,下一步他们是否会转移进郊区现在还不很清楚。拉丁族人通常是几代人居住在同一房子里,所以如果能够负担得起的话他们会喜欢买郊区的大房子。但是,移民通常不喜欢郊区那种人与人之间隔离的生活方式,所以郊区对他们的吸引力就降低了。

综上所述,未来房地产投资应该集中在城市和靠近城市的郊区,这类地区是婴儿潮和年轻人士都愿意居住的地方。与此同时,郊区的大房子无论是销售和价格都会在相当长一段时间里死气沉沉。





Treasury Delay on Bank Home-Equity Debt Imperils Housing Pickup


Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Treasury Department has failed to win agreements to get struggling borrowers’ home- equity debt reworked, among the biggest roadblocks to reducing foreclosures that may reach a record 3 million this year.

None of the lenders holding a combined $1.05 trillion in the debt has signed contracts requiring participation in the second-mortgage modification plan announced eight months ago. The largest banks remain “committed” to joining, Meg Reilly, a department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.

President Barack Obama in February announced a $75 billion program to cut first-mortgage payments. The Treasury detailed a plan on April 28 in which second-mortgage owners modify or retire debt when the first lien is changed, saying it would be running in a month. The near-record level of home-equity debt held by lenders including Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. may lead to foreclosures that threaten housing stability after the worst slump since the 1930s.

“The issue of the second liens has to be escalated,” said Richard Neiman, New York’s banking superintendent and a member the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s Congressional oversight panel. The government should consider forcing banks to participate and to recognize the “true value” of second liens, he said.

Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. carry such mortgages at about $150 billion more than their value, according to estimates by Joshua Rosner, an analyst at Graham Fisher & Co. in New York.

Equity lines and other second mortgages rank junior to typical mortgages, meaning they get wiped out in a foreclosure unless sale proceeds from a seized home exceed the first debt.

Still Struggling

As Obama’s Home Affordable Modification Plan, or HAMP, lowers first-mortgage payments, some borrowers are still left with bills they can’t afford, according to Newport Beach, California-based Pacific Investment Management Co.

“Modifying the first mortgage doesn’t necessarily get the homeowner to good shape,” Scott Simon, head of mortgage-bond investing at Pimco, manager of the world’s biggest fixed-income fund, said in a telephone interview.

About 25 percent of homeowners who received trial loan modifications are failing to keep up with their reduced payments, the Treasury said Jan. 15.

Rosner said overvalued home-equity debt prevents residents from getting the aid likeliest to keep them in their homes: principal forgiveness.

First-mortgage owners usually won’t agree to the deeper principal reductions needed to reduce the loan to at or below the home’s value when home-equity holders aren’t willing to make sizable cuts, said John Taylor, chief executive officer of the Washington-based National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

Considering Changes

Three million U.S. homes will be repossessed this year as high unemployment and depressed values leave borrowers unable or unwilling to make their payments or sell, RealtyTrac Inc. forecast on Jan. 14. Almost 10.7 million, or 23 percent, of residential properties with mortgages were in negative equity as of Sept. 30, according to First American CoreLogic.

Policy makers may be able to reduce re-defaults on modified debt from an average of 57 percent within a year “significantly” more by getting mortgages lowered rather than by spurring larger payment cuts, New York Federal Reserve Bank researchers wrote in a December paper.

The government is considering changes to permanently cut balances on which borrowers owe more than the property is worth, said Michael Barr, the assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions.

“We are in the process of reviewing that now as we have been continually,” Barr said on a conference call last week. “You have to be very careful not to design a program that would change people’s behavior across the country.”

Banks’ Efforts

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan “recommitted” to participating in the Treasury program this month as part of “our aggressive efforts to help customers,” Rick Simon, a company spokesman, said in an e-mail.

“We are waiting for final guidelines,” Simon said.

Citigroup is “actively engaged with the U.S. Treasury in finding a workable solution,” Mark Rodgers, a spokesman, said in an e-mail.

Wells Fargo is working with the government “to understand the program specifics,” Mary Berg, a spokeswoman for the San Francisco-based bank, said in a phone message.

Tom Kelly, a spokesman for New York-based JPMorgan, declined to comment.

Banks’ reluctance to write down second mortgages also hampers short sales, when homeowners sell a house for less than they owe.

Sticking Point

“If I had to name one sticking point, it’s the second mortgage,” said Ethan W. Gregory, an agent with First Coast Realty Associates in Jacksonville, Florida, who specializes in short sales.

Americans tapped home equity as values more than doubled between the start of 2000 and the market’s apex, and took “piggyback” loans in lieu of down payments.

Home prices rose in each of the six months through October, increasing 5.3 percent, after a record 33 percent plunge from the 2006 peak, an S&P/Case-Shiller index for 20 metropolitan areas showed. Gains were driven by a decline in the share of sales involving “distressed” properties that will reverse this year as foreclosures climb, Deutsche Bank AG said Dec. 18.

The government’s Home Affordable program offers subsidies to lenders, bond investors, loan servicers and consumers to rework first mortgages so that payments, insurance and taxes don’t exceed 31 percent of a borrower’s income.

Lender Relief

The Treasury said in April that home-equity lenders would receive a subsidy to reduce interest rates to as low as 1 percent. Lien holders could get as much as 12 cents on the dollar to retire debt. Officials said on a conference call that within about a month its program would start helping borrowers, and that as many as half of “at risk” homeowners had second mortgages.

The Treasury “has been working to create program infrastructure and technology, including a new platform that matches second liens to first liens modified under HAMP,” Reilly said Jan. 7. “Because there has not been a systematic method of notification to second lien holders when a first lien on the same property is modified, ramp up has taken some time.”

BlackRock Inc. CEO Laurence Fink, who oversees the world’s largest asset manager, has called the government’s effort flawed because of its treatment of second mortgages, which he said should be wiped out before first liens are touched.

“There is modification going on protecting our banks, protecting their balance sheets,” Fink said in a September interview. With the right types of changes, he said, “the homeowner is better off, America is better off, and you could say the first lien holder is better off.”

Loss Allowances

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. last year urged lenders to consider whether borrowers’ housing debt exceeds the value of their properties and whether first mortgages have been reworked when determining loss allowances.

Bank of America’s allowance for home-equity losses equaled 6.4 percent of its $152 billion portfolio as of Sept. 30, according to a slide from an earnings presentation posted on its Web site. Half the portfolio was tied to borrowers with debt exceeding 90 percent of their property’s value.

Spokesmen for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the largest owners of first-mortgage risk, declined to comment. The companies were seized by the U.S. in September 2008 and are being supported by unlimited taxpayer capital through 2012, after drawing $111 billion so far.

While Home Affordable allows loan servicers to reduce borrowers’ principal instead of just their payments, such steps aren’t required and decisions are designated to the servicers.

The four U.S. largest banks, which own almost $450 billion of home-equity debt, are also the biggest servicers handling payments and collections on loans held by others.

“If they can get the first to eat it, why would they want to on the second?” Simon said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Jody Shenn in New York at jshenn@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: January 19, 2010 00:01 EST

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行


上一次由纯属误会于2010-6-17 周四, 下午9:58修改,总共修改了1次
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-3-01 周一, 下午11:37    标题: 引用回复

《独家新闻》美国1月抵押贷款违约率上升, 威胁楼市复苏
2010年 3月 2日 星期二 11:29 BJT


全球市场新闻:《路透峰会》美国重建基金经理人预料欧洲未来数年将成一大亮点


路透纽约3月1日电---逾期未还抵押贷款的美国屋主上升,威胁初步复苏的楼市,并提高房屋市场尚未触底而将进一步下滑的可能性.

美国大型信贷机构Equifax(EFX.N: 行情)向路透独家提供的数据显示,1月逾期还款至少30天的抵押贷款屋主比率超过8%,较去年12月上升4.4%,较上年同期更是大增21%.

这一数据基于Equifax的2亿多份美国消费者信用资料计算.

Equifax旗下的美国消费者信息部门总裁Dann Adams称,"这并非只是小幅上升."

这一增长令Adams颇感意外,因去年第四季抵押贷款违约率似乎已企稳.

他称,导致抵押贷款违约率升高的背後推手是高达9.7%的失业率.

Adams指出,逾期还款至少90天或120天的抵押贷款屋主数量亦持续攀升.

总部设在美国加利福尼亚州的房地产数据公司RealtyTrac表示,1月的止赎个案为315,716例,较12月减少近10%,但较上年同期增加15%.

Adams称,未来三至六个月将有大批房屋止赎,这将增加供给,从而给房价带来更多压力.

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-3-08 周一, 下午12:54    标题: 引用回复

U.S. Economy: Pending Sales of Existing Homes Decline

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=annIGOlSNpqY&pos=2


March 4 (Bloomberg) -- Fewer Americans than expected signed contracts to purchase previously owned homes in January, indicating the extension of a tax credit is doing little to lure buyers.

The index of purchase agreements, or pending home sales, dropped 7.6% after a revised 0.8% increase in December. Other reports today showed factory orders increased and first-time jobless claims declined.

The drop in contract signings adds to evidence the housing market at the center of the worst recession since the 1930s is struggling to rebound after reports last week showed unexpected declines in purchases of new and existing homes.

The market may get another blow this month when the Federal Reserve ends planned purchases of mortgage-backed securities.

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
纯属误会



性别:性别:男
年龄:99
十二宫图:天平宫
加入时间: 2009/11/10
文章: 460
来自: 北美
股金: 506
离线

文章时间: 2010-3-23 周二, 上午6:10    标题: 引用回复

Where have all the buyers gone?
Commentary: It's a great time to buy a home, but factors conspire against sales

By Irwin Kellner, MarketWatch
March 23, 2010, 12:42 a.m. EDT


PORT WASHINGTON, N.Y. (MarketWatch) -- It's the best time in decades to buy a house, and yet, buyers for the most part are nowhere to be found.

Interest rates on home mortgages are the lowest they have been in more than 50 years. What is more, the Federal Reserve is committed to keeping rates down.

Home prices have fallen sharply. Nationwide they are down more than 25% from their 2007 peaks -- in some really overbuilt markets like South Florida you can double this percentage.

These declines have made houses more affordable today than any time since the mid-1980s. Median home prices today amount to only 2.78 times median household incomes; they were four times incomes back in 2005.

Buyers can probably drive these prices even lower, since sellers are anxious, to say the least.

The number of homes for sale is at near-record highs compared with the number of homes being sold each month. Meanwhile, the combination of foreclosures and new-home construction continues to add to inventories.

Brokers' commissions are down. Six percent is no longer de rigueur; 4% or even less is more common. And as an added sweetener, the government will give home buyers a tax break, besides.

Yet sales remain weak. Both new and existing home sales have tumbled sharply from last year's levels -- not to mention from their all-time highs set in the halcyon days of 2005.

It's not for lack of credit. Contrary to popular belief, the banks are lending -- albeit more carefully than they did during the bubble era a few years ago.

Still, those who can muster up 20% of the price for a down payment and document their income for the past year or two -- the way it used to be -- should find most banks eager to do business.

All that said buyers remain scarce. Even the arrival of spring has not convinced prospective buyers to venture outdoors and at least look at the merchandise.

There are several reasons for this. One is that most people who buy a home have one to sell -- and, obviously, this is easier said than done.

Even more important, attitudes towards prices have changed.

As the bubble was inflating and prices were rising, people rushed to buy all manner of homes before prices rose further. Now, in a period of falling prices, buyers figure if they don't buy today, homes will be cheaper tomorrow.

It will take clear signs of price stability before buyers will be willing to make a bid, after all, who wants to buy a depreciating asset? (Hint: We do it all the time -- with cars, furniture appliances and the like.)

Buyers are also waiting for an improvement in the job market as well -- and this, perhaps, is the biggest hurdle facing home sales.

With unemployment as high and pervasive as it is, few households have the confidence enough to take the plunge and make the biggest purchase of their lives -- a home.

Maybe now that he's got his health-care program, President Obama will turn his attention to the main problem confronting people these days: job insecurity.

_________________
大道至简 锦衣夜行
返回顶端
阅读会员资料 发送站内短信
显示文章:   
发表新主题   回复主题 茶香股谈首页  -> 资料区 ->  财经新闻 所有的时间均为 美国东部时间
分页 1, 2, 3, 4  下一页
1页,共4

 
论坛转跳:  
不能在本论坛发表新主题
不能在本论坛回复主题
不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
不能在本论坛发表投票
不能在这个论坛添加附件
不能在这个论坛下载文件