Week in Review
Living in New York City is expensive. High taxes. And high property values. But people want to live in the city. And will pay very high rents to do so. Which landlords can charge because there are people willing to pay them. It’s the basic law of supply and demand. It’s the same reason why beachfront property is so expensive. There’s so little of it and so many people want to live there. So the property goes to the highest bidder. Which is why some of the richest movie and television stars own the best of these properties. Because they are willing to pay the highest price.
Of course that’s all right for the rich. But what about the poor and middle class? Who can’t afford to live like rich movie and television stars? Well, there has long been a cry for affordable housing for the less affluent. And price controls. To keep rents affordable for those of more modest means. There have been various forms of rent control in New York City. To make housing more available to the less affluent. Which actually reduced the number of apartments available to them. How, you may ask. Well, when it comes to rent there are two parties. A buyer and a seller. We know why buyers are buying. They want a place to live. But why do sellers want to rent out apartments? To make a profit. And because rent control made it more difficult to make a profit landlords went elsewhere to make a profit. Thus reducing the number of rental units available.
New York City still has rent-controlled apartments. And people desperately want to live in them because rent everywhere else (at market prices) is so expensive. So there are often battles between rent-control tenants and landlords who want to rent at market prices. Like this (see Brooklyn landlords illegally harassed, targeted rent-stabilized tenants: suit by Erik Badia, Ginger Adams Otis posted 4/15/2014 on the Daily News).
The landlords targeted longstanding black tenants who lived in rent-stabilized apartments, the suit contends.
The plaintiffs pay anywhere from $600 to $1,400 a month for 52 three-bedroom units in the three buildings, according to the lawsuit…
The group claims the landlords, who bought the buildings in 2009, have neglected to do repairs in black-occupied units…
Approximately 15 new tenants have moved in since then, paying market rents as a high as $2,500, the plaintiffs claim…
Pilgrim, who pays a stabilized $950 rent for his apartment, said he has talked to new tenants who had told him they are paying more than double that rate…
“How can you go from paying $687 a month to $2,500 a month? They’re also taking advantage of these young kids,” Bell said.
The tenant sees the landlord as being greedy. While the landlord sees that apartment being rented 72.5% below what it could be renting for. If the roles were reversed the tenant would probably do the same thing. Because people want to make money. And people want to be rich. That’s why they buy lotto tickets. And try to make it in movies and television. To be rich and famous. They don’t buy properties to see how little money they can make with them. They buy them to see how much money they can make with them. Movie stars would never put their mansions up for sale at 72.5% below what other rich people would pay for them. Just as a middle class homeowner would never sell her home for 72.5% below what someone would pay for it.
The law of supply and demand bring buyers and sellers together at a price they both agree on. Making both parties happy. When laws interfere with market prices (such as rent control) both parties are seldom happy. Buyers tend to be happier. But because sellers are so unhappy they stop selling. Thus reducing the number of apartments available to rent. Which is why rent control doesn’t work. It actually reduces the amount of affordable housing. So that only a very lucky few can enjoy life in a rent-control apartment.
Tags: affordable housing, apartments, buyer, high rents, landlords, law of supply and demand, market prices, middle class, New York City, poor, profit, rent control, rents, seller, supply and demand, tenants
Week in Review
The Canadians like to think of themselves as kinder and gentler than their neighbors south of the border. For they have a generous welfare state. Including single-payer health care. Unlike those Americans who put profits before people. But it comes at a price. High taxes. And they do pay a lot. But they get a lot. Those high taxes, though, lower take-home pay. Giving Canadians less disposable income than their neighbors south of the border. Which means they have to borrow more to make up for that smaller disposable income (see Personal debt ratio hits record high of 163.7% posted 12/13/2013 on CBC News).
Statistics Canada reported Friday that the level of household credit market debt to disposable income increased to 163.7 per cent in the third quarter from 163.1 per cent in the second quarter.
That means Canadians owe nearly $1.64 for every $1 in disposable income they earn in a year.
Policymakers are fixated on the debt ratio in part because it was at above 160 per cent that households in the United States and Britain ran into trouble about five years ago, contributing to defaults and the financial crisis that triggered the 2008-09 recession…
Indeed, while they are borrowing more, Canadians are also worth more as their assets increase by a similar amount. The national net worth increased to $7.5 trillion in the third quarter, up 2.1 per cent from the previous quarter.
On a per capita basis, that works out to $212,700 for every Canadian. The previous quarter, that figure was $208,300.
Rising net worth and rising debt? Gee, what could that mean? Well, most people’s wealth is determined by the price of their home. As the value of their homes rise so does their net worth. That is, their net worth rises as the price of their home (if they were to sell) rises. And as their home price rises so do other home prices. Which increases mortgage amounts. As people borrow more to buy these more expensive homes. And the lower the interest rates the more they will borrow and the bigger the house they will buy. And this creates a what? That’s right. A housing bubble (see Is There a Canadian Housing Bubble? by Carrie Rossenfeld posted 11/13/2013 on GlobeSt.com).
GlobeSt.com: What factors lead experts to think there may be a Canadian housing bubble?
Muoio: For us, the biggest sign there is a housing bubble is how far prices have appreciated without a corresponding rise in income. This means housing affordability is falling rapidly and will eventually reach a tipping point. Additionally, if lenders are underwriting against an expectation of rising prices, this could result in loosening standards and too much leverage in the system.
GlobeSt.com: How similar are these factors to what happened to the US housing market before the recession?
C.M.: Very similar. US home prices kept appreciating while incomes saw only modest growth in the final years before the bubble burst. This led to a situation where eventually housing just became entirely unaffordable and the market’s liquidity completely dried up. With people over-levered due to the loose lending standards (which were enabled by the expectation of rising prices), this led to a massive unwind and foreclosure mess we are still working through. Additionally, Canada, just like us at the time, is building an extreme amount of homes that could lead to oversupply issues.
A rising debt level and higher net worth probably is more bad news than good. For it is likely a sign of a housing bubble. Just like these very things were a sign of a housing bubble in the U.S. just before the subprime mortgage crisis. Or is it a sign that Canadians are just taxed too much leaving them with less disposable income? Forcing them to borrow more as they cannot save enough for a sizeable down payment to reduce the amount they have to finance? Or is it both?
It appears the Canadians can’t learn from the Americans. And when the Canadian bubble bursts the Americans won’t learn anything from the Canadians. For governments today want to keep interest rates low to encourage home ownership. Which they do. Taking us from bubble to bubble. And from recession to recession.
Tags: Canada, debt ratio, disposable income, high taxes, home price, housing bubble, interest rates, mortgage, net worth, recession, wealth
Week in Review
Governments like people buying houses. Because it is the biggest engine of economic activity. Generated from building houses. And then furnishing them. And they’ll do just about anything to encourage people to buy houses. No matter the damage it can cause. As we’ve recently learned. But that hasn’t stopped government from making the same mistakes (see Budget 2013: The good, the bad and the ugly by Sam Bowman posted 3/20/2013 on Adam Smith Institute).
Bank guarantees to underpin £130bn of new mortgage lending for three years from 2014. Apparently the Treasury has not learned the lesson of 2008: injecting taxpayer money into the housing sector will simply inflate prices, distorting price signals and stoking the housing bubble that already seems to be growing in the housing sector. Houses are expensive because supply is restricted by the planning system. Instead of throwing money at the problem and driving prices up even more, the government should have the courage to liberalize planning to allow more development, including on green belt land.
Government ministers picking winners. Fiddling with tax breaks for specific industries is a mug’s game. There is no way the government can know which industries to promote, and these projects inevitably collapse into a mess of overcomplicated grant schemes and politics-driven bailouts of failing firms. Only consumers can pick winners.
Government spending is still rising. Despite all the talk of cuts, the government will still be spending £761bn this year, nearly £20bn more than last year. By leaving healthcare alone and failing to carry out the big structural reforms needed to reduce social security spending, the government is not matching its rhetoric on spending with the action needed. We’re still going to be borrowing £108bn this year – that’s £295m a day, every day, with no end to the borrowing in sight.
While those on the Left blame Wall Street and greedy banks for the subprime mortgage crisis the British press knows who was at fault. The U.S. government. They’re the ones who kept interest rates artificially low. Creating a housing bubble. It was Bill Clinton who pressured lenders to make bad loans (to fix discrimination in lending that was not there). This is why banks turned to subprime lending. And the adjustable rate mortgage (ARM). To qualify the unqualified. Which they only did because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteed those loans. Even buying them to get them off of the banks’ books. So the U.S. government caused the subprime mortgage crisis. Not Wall Street. Or greedy bankers.
Land use restrictions have long kept housing prices high. Rich people have used their influence with government to restrict new housing in some very nice areas. You can’t build new housing in some of the most exclusive neighborhoods. Which keeps housing availability low. Housing prices high. And the ‘undesirables’ out of these rich people’s neighborhoods. Allowing the rich to stick with their own kind.
Friends of the government get special favors. Solyndra gets government loans to produce something there is no market for. They go bankrupt. Yet the government continues to spend money to pick winners the market passes on. Some things never change. No matter where you are.
Wherever you look these days governments give examples of what not to do. Yet no one ever heeds these warnings. And they make the same mistakes over and over again. No matter how bad those mistakes were. And as far as mistakes go, few were as bad as all the bad policy decisions that led up to the subprime mortgage crisis. Yet President Obama has already talked about doing more of the same. As are the British. Why? Because of that insatiable desire governments have to spend. It has toppled empires in the past. And yet they still spend. As they will always continue to spend. Because spending gives them power. Which trumps everything else. Even the trust of the people.
Tags: British, government spending, housing, housing bubble, housing prices, interest rates, subprime mortgage crisis
Week in Review
Stop me if you heard this one before (see S. Korea’s Poisoned Chalice of Household Debt Restricts Park by Sangwon Yoon posted 2/21/2013 on Bloomberg).
Park [Geun Hye, Korea’s incoming president] suggested state institutions could buy stakes in mortgaged apartments that have fallen in value, such as Kwon’s. The stakes would then be used as collateral for asset-backed securities, using rent from homeowners to pay interest to investors…
South Korean regulators have been working on a “soft landing” policy since June 2011, including limits on bank lending and tax breaks for homeowners switching to fixed-rate loans. About 85.8 percent of mortgages are currently adjustable…
“The quality of household debt is worsening,” said Lee Eun Mi, senior research fellow at Samsung Economic Research Institute in Seoul. Park needs “measures to stymie the rising danger of a massive default crisis…”
Some borrowers have staved off default by taking out further loans to pay mortgage interest…
Irresponsible household borrowing began after the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis, said Kim Mi Sun, a debt counselor at a non-profit organization called Edu Money in Seoul. In the wake of corporate defaults during the crisis, the government curbed companies’ ability to sell credit, prompting banks to expand lending to consumers, including a rapid increase in home loans.
“It became so much easier to get loans after the crisis and everyone started taking out debts and mortgages they couldn’t afford,” said Kim. “The crux of the issue is that people simply don’t know how to manage their finances.”
The credit boom early in the last decade caused house prices to soar and left many Koreans with large loan obligations.
Sound familiar? Sounds a lot like the subprime mortgage crisis, doesn’t it? Easy credit encouraged a lot of people to buy houses they couldn’t afford with adjustable rate mortgages (ARM). Just like in the United States following President Clinton’s Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending. Where the president told lenders that they had better find a way to qualify the unqualified or else. Which they did. With subprime lending. And the ARM. And when the interest rates reset at higher rates there was a massive default crisis.
Interestingly Park Geun Hye is suggesting a solution to help underwater mortgages that the U.S. used to spread the subprime mortgage crisis contagion around the world. The collateralized debt obligation (CDO). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought the toxic subprime mortgages and packaged them into CDOs. And unloaded them on unsuspecting investors. Telling them that they were high yield. And low risk. Because their return came from the cash flows of homeowners making mortgage payments. And what was less risky than mortgage payments? Of course, what they failed to mention was that these were ARMs sold to low-income people who had no hope of paying their mortgage payments if interest rates ever rose. Which they did. Sending the fallout of the subprime mortgage crisis around the world.
No. CDOs may not be the best solution to their problems. And chances are that investors may not buy these. For they were burned once by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And they’re probably not going to fall for the old ‘investment backed by cash flows from subprime mortgages’ trick again.
Amazing how some things never change. Different place. Different people. But the same bad government policies. Producing the same massive default crisis. This is what you get when you interfere in the free market economy. But some people never learn this lesson. Despite the numerous examples of what not to do. And if anyone taught people what NOT to do was the U.S. in the run-up to the subprime mortgage crisis. Even the Americans can’t learn from their own lesson as President Obama is already talking about bringing back the policies that caused the subprime mortgage crisis in the first place. Putting more people into houses that they can’t afford.
Tags: Adjustable Rate Mortgage, ARM, CDO, collateralized debt obligation, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, house prices, interest rates, loans, massive default crisis, mortgages, Park Geun Hye, subprime mortgage crisis, subprime mortgages
Week in Review
Housing sales are booming in China. And prices are soaring. So much so that the government is taking some action (see China Orders More Cities to Restrict Housing Purchases by Bloomberg News posted 2/21/2013 on Bloomberg).
China told local authorities to “decisively” curb real estate speculation and take steps to rein in the property market after prices rose the most in two years last month…
The government’s almost three-year effort to curb property prices has included raising down-payment and mortgage requirements, increasing construction of low-cost social housing and restricting home purchases in about 40 cities. Authorities also imposed a property tax for the first time in the cities of Shanghai and Chongqing.
Why all the concern of rising property prices? Because of what happens when they stop rising. Like they did in the U.S. When people were paying mortgages that were greater than the market value of their houses some of them walked away. And let the bank have their house. As more did more foreclosed houses entered the market. When interest rates rose on Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM) some could no longer pay their mortgage payment. And they, too, let the banks have their houses. Putting more foreclosed houses on the market. With more houses on the market prices fell further. Putting more people underwater in their mortgages. And so on. Until the U.S. eased itself into the Great Recession. Just as the Japanese eased themselves in their Lost Decade when their asset bubble burst.
This is what the Chinese want to avoid. That downward spiral of prices. Deflation. Sending their economy into a tail spin. Like the Japanese are still trying to pull themselves out of some two decades later. Because housing sales are the biggest driver of the domestic economy. Building houses. And furnishing houses. It all adds up to a lot of economic activity. Which the Chinese want so desperately so they are not wholly dependent on their export economy. For they really don’t want to end up like the Japanese. But they probably will. As the Chinese are trying to manage the economy too much. Just as the Japanese did. All that government partnering with business. It just doesn’t build real economic activity. Because you have bureaucrats making economic decisions. Not the market. And bureaucrats often get things wrong. Unlike the market. Especially when it comes to asset bubbles. When the market creates them they’re not that big and the corrections are not that painful. But when the government creates one with their excessive interference into the free market economy you get a Lost Decade. Or a Great Recession.
Tags: asset bubbles, bubble, bureaucrats, China, Great Recession, housing sales, Japan, lost decade, mortgage, property prices
Week in Review
Housing sales drive the economy. Because it takes a lot of economic activity to build houses. And even more for homeowners to furnish their homes. This is why the government gave us the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession. They kept interest rates artificially low. And the Clinton administration forced lenders to lower standards to put as many people into houses as possible. But, alas, they put a lot of people into homes that couldn’t afford them. Using subprime mortgages to get them into those homes. Like the adjustable rate mortgage. And when interest rates went up so did their mortgage payments. And they defaulted. Which kicked off the subprime mortgage crisis. Giving us the Great Recession.
These low interest rates created a great demand for housing. Everyone was borrowing money to buy. Because money was so cheap to borrow. And with those lower standards borrowing money was never easier. Especially for investors. Who bought houses. Fixed them up. And put them back on the market. House flippers. With all this demand housing prices soared. Creating a great housing bubble. Which burst. As all bubbles do. And housing prices plummeted. Leaving people with mortgages greater than the new value of their houses. Some walked away. Especially those who put little to nothing down. Like those house flippers. And those subprime borrowers. Flooding the market with more homes. Putting further pressure on housing prices.
It was a huge mess the government gave us. The damage was great. And we’ve been waiting a long time for the housing market to recover. Housing prices are finally rising. But not for the right reasons (see Home prices on the rise, but not ownership by Alejandro Lazo posted 1/29/2013 on the Los Angeles Times).
The sharp increase in home prices — particularly in regional markets such as Phoenix and Las Vegas, which had been so decimated by the bust — is raising concern among some economists…
It is those kinds of big increases that could fuel speculation.
“It does concern me a bit,” Zillow.com chief economist Stan Humphries said. “It encourages people to think about housing as a short-term investment, instead of a long-term investment…”
While prices may be rising, homeownership is struggling, an indication that investors are playing a big part in fueling the market’s rebound. The Census Bureau said Tuesday that national homeownership fell 0.6% to 65.4% in the fourth quarter over the same period a year earlier…
The spike in prices is masking the trouble that borrowers with underwater mortgages are facing. In fact, it’s precisely because so many borrowers cannot get out from underneath their upside-down homes that prices are rising so much, economists have said, because those people are simply hanging on and not putting their homes on the market.
People underwater are hanging on because they don’t want to take a huge loss by selling. When you lose some 25-40% of your home’s value there’s only one way to get it back. You keep living in it. For a long time. For only time can restore a home’s value. Which a homeowner will lose if he or she sells.
So house prices are coming back up. But like elsewhere in the economy it’s the rich who are doing well. Not middle class families. Those who want to live in their homes. Furnish their homes. These people who drive real economic activity. Not the house flippers who are just trying to profit off the misfortune of others. Who are picking up houses on the cheap thanks to those lost their homes or sold them at a loss. And flipping them to make a profit. These are the people doing well in Obama’s America. Not middle class families.
Tags: Great Recession, homeowners, house flippers, housing bubble, housing prices, housing sales, interest rates, middle class, subprime mortgage, subprime mortgage crisis, underwater mortgages
Week in Review
A generation or two ago people got married to raise a family. The husband typically earned the money. And the wife raised the family. On a single salary. A time when most children grew up in a two-parent household. Where boys grew up playing with toy guns. But never took a real one to school. Today it’s a lot harder to raise a family on a single income (see Cost of Raising a Child Up to $235K—Before College by Chris Wadsworth, special to USA TODAY, posted 12/24/2012 on CNBC).
According to the latest statistics released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, parents will spend an average of $235,000 to raise a child born in 2011 to the age of 17. (And that’s not taking into account any savings for college).
Housing, food, clothing, health care, child care, schooling … the list of compulsory expenses goes on and on. Discretionary spending such as family vacations, birthday gifts, music lessons and the like are mostly extra…
The greatest share of these expenses is housing, which is 30 percent of the total. It’s followed closely by child care and education at 18 percent and food at 16 percent…
“Our day care expense for just our older son was over $1,000 a month,” Sutton says. “If we had put our younger son in day care as well, it would have been about $2,200 a month. That was more than our mortgage payment.”
We hear this all of the time. But we never really hear the why. Why is it that it takes two incomes to raise a family these days? Forcing parents to pay so much for day care that they could buy another house with that money. Why that house expense is so expensive. And why education and food costs so much. So let’s look at the why. And here’s why. Keynesian economics. And liberal Democrats.
Liberal Democrats champion Keynesian economics as it sanctions what they want to do most. Tax, borrow, print and spend. When Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold the great devaluing of the dollar began. In 2012 it took $8.21 to buy what $1 would by in 1955. A $15,000 house in 1955 would cost about $127,000 today. So that’s part of the reason why housing is so expensive. The other reason is that Keynesian monetary policy. Where the Federal Reserve (America’s central bank) kept interest rates artificially low to encourage people to buy houses. Which they did. In droves. Driving up the price of housing. Creating housing bubbles. The last one bursting into the subprime mortgage crisis. Giving us the Great Recession.
But it’s just not the Federal Reserve devaluing the dollar. Gasoline cost about $0.23/gallon in 1955. If you adjust that for inflation it would bring it up to $1.89 today. At the end of summer 2012 the average gasoline price was $3.72/gallon. Which is a $1.83 premium over the inflation-adjusted price. A 96.8% increase in price. What caused this near doubling in price? Well, the American Left has shut down a lot of oil drilling due to environmental issues. Raising the cost of crude oil. Which increased the cost of gasoline refined from that crude oil. Further, new environmental regulations have increased the cost of refining. Requiring a plethora of blends depending on the time of year. Further increasing the price of gasoline.
Higher gasoline prices make everything more expensive wherever gasoline is used. On the farm. The transportation from the farm to the food processor. Transportation from the food processor to the food wholesaler. Transportation from the food wholesaler to the food retailer. Transportation from the family home to the grocery store and back. High gasoline prices raise prices everywhere. And consume more of the family budget.
Education is the one industry no one every blames those in control of the industry for being greedy. No one every blames our universities for their high tuition fees. They blame the taxpayers who don’t approve higher taxes to subsidize the high cost of education. Which is high due to very generous pay and benefit packages for teachers, professors, administrators and support personnel. Much more generous than those found in the private sector. Why do they get away with this when liberal Democrats attack business owners for being greedy? Because business owners don’t have as their primary mission to produce Democrat voters.
So what is increasing the cost of raising children so much? Liberal Democrat policies. They depreciate the currency, inflate the cost of housing (and cause Great Recessions), add huge regulatory costs that increase prices throughout the supply chain and create and protect a privileged class. Consuming more and more of the family budget. Making it ever more costly to raise children.
Tags: children, cost of raising children, day care, devaluing the dollar, education, environmental regulations, family, Federal Reserve, food, gasoline, gasoline price, Great Recession, housing, housing bubble, inflation, Keynesian economics, Liberal Democrats, monetary policy, parent, price of housing, raise a family, single income, transportation, two incomes
Week in Review
The subprime mortgage crisis caused the Great Recession. And bad government policy caused the subprime mortgage policy. First with artificially low interest rates to encourage everyone to borrow money and take on enormous amounts of debt. Then the Clinton administration took it up a notch. By charging lenders with discrimination in their lending practices. And if they didn’t find a away to qualify the unqualified for mortgages they would soon find themselves out of the mortgage business. So they came up with subprime lending. Adjustable rate mortgages (ARM). No documentation mortgages. Anything to get the government off of their backs. And the government was so pleased with what they saw they started to buy (and/or guarantee) those toxic mortgages with their Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Clearing those toxic mortgages from the lenders balance sheet by unloading them onto unsuspecting investors. Clearing the way for even more toxic subprime lending. The government was pleased. And the bankers were making money with bad lending practices. Something they normally would have avoided because it is very risky. But when the government was transferring that risk to the taxpayer what did they have to lose?
Governments like a hot real estate market. Because housing sales drives so much economic activity. Because people put a lot of stuff into those houses. Which is why governments are always quick to use their monetary authority to lower interest rates. Which is what they did in the US. Cheap money to borrow. Lax lending practices thanks to the Clinton administration. Creating a housing boom. And a housing bubble. It was a perfect storm brewing. The only thing that it needed was a raise in the interest rates. Which came. Causing the subprime mortgage crisis as those ARMS reset at higher interest rates. Leading to a wave of subprime mortgage defaults. And the Great Recession. Which raced around the world thanks to those toxic mortgages Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac unloaded on unsuspecting investors.
Canada did not suffer as much from the Great Recession. Because they did not pressure their lenders to qualify the unqualified like Bill Clinton did in the US. But they still used their monetary authority to keep interest rates artificially low. So while they escaped the great damage the Americans suffered in their subprime mortgage they still have a housing bubble. And it looks like it may be time for it to burst (see Analysis: Canada braces as housing slowdown takes hold by Andrea Hopkins posted 11/10/2012 on Reuters).
Long convinced the country’s housing boom would never end in a crash, Canadians have watched this autumn as a sharp slowdown in real estate spreads across the country, leaving would-be home buyers hopeful and sellers scared…
Signs are everywhere that Canada’s long run-up in house prices is over, hit by a combination of tighter mortgage lending rules and growing consumer reluctance to take on more debt. Sales of existing homes are down steeply, with condo sales hit especially hard, and some long-booming prices have started to fall…
Canadian households hold more debt than American families did before the U.S. housing bubble burst, which has led the government to tighten mortgage lending rules four times in four years…
Tal believes slower sales activity will be followed by falling prices in many cities. But he says Canadian lending standards have been higher, and borrowers more cautious, than in the United States before its crash, which will prevent large-scale mortgage defaults and plunging prices.
Mindful of what happened in the United States, the Canadian government has tightened mortgage rules to prevent home buyers from taking on too much debt. While interest rates are low and expected to stay low into 2013, the fear is that eventual rate hikes will drive borrowers out of their homes or into bankruptcy…
The last round of mortgage rule changes took effect in July, forcing home buyers to cut back on their budget and pushing many prospective first-time buyers out of the market entirely.
The Canadians may escape the damage the US suffered as Bill Clinton was an American and not a Canadian. So they only have to suffer the effects of bad monetary policy. Not the effects of government enforced bad lending practices. So housing prices will fall in Canada. And there will probably be a recession to correct those inflated real estate prices. But housing prices probably will not fall as far as they did in the US. For the Canadians were more responsible with their irresponsible monetary policy than the Americans were.
The lesson here is that when markets determine interest rates housing bubbles are smaller and recessions are less painful. If you don’t believe that just ask an American with an underwater mortgage.
Tags: ARM, artificially low interest rates, bad lending practices, Bill Clinton, Canada, Canadians, debt, Fannie, Fannie Mae, Freddie, Freddie Mac, Great Recession, housing boom, housing bubble, interest rates, lending, monetary authority, mortgages, qualify the unqualified, subprime lending, subprime mortgage crisis, toxic mortgages
Week in Review
The Chinese housing market isn’t what it was. Which can be quite the problem considering the housing boom was 13% of China’s GDP (see China new home prices slide for sixth consecutive month posted 4/18/2012 on BBC News Business).
Property prices in China have fallen for a sixth consecutive month amid government efforts to control prices and curb speculation.
New home prices in 46 out of 70 Chinese cities fell between February and March. Meanwhile prices were lower than a year ago in 38 cities.
There have been fears of the formation of asset bubbles in China…
The booming housing industry supported China’s expansion in recent years, with real estate investment making up 13% of the nation’s gross domestic product in 2011…
“The ultimate goal of the property tightening is to drive down prices but maintain growth in construction and investment.”
Hey, this kind of sounds familiar. Prior to 2008, the U.S. housing market was red hot. People were being approved for mortgages they didn’t have a chance in hell of being able to repay. And house flippers were walking in and getting mortgages for zero down. Fixing them up and putting them back on the market. The subprime mortgage made both of these possible. And the government was doing everything within its power to put as many people in houses as possible. Keeping interest rates artificially low. And having their GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up toxic subprime mortgages from banks and unloading them onto unsuspecting investors in the guise of ‘safe’ mortgage-backed securities. The economy was booming. Then the housing bubble burst. As did the economy.
The lesson here is the same the Japanese learned in the Nineties. If you put your housing market on government steroids (artificially low interest rates, laws to force lenders t make bad loans, loan guarantees, etc.) it will crash and burn one day. And if you keep building houses you will lower prices on homes already built. The houses people are paying mortgages on. And if you build enough new houses the value of the older houses will be less than the mortgage they’re paying. Especially after the bubble bursts. And you see how well that worked out in the U.S. Suffice it to say President Obama is not running for reelection on his economic record.
Tags: asset bubbles, Chinese, home prices, housing bubble, housing industry, housing market, mortgages, speculation
Week in Review
Looks like the Chinese are having some troubles of their own (see More Chinese developers file for bankruptcy: report by Alex Frew McMillan posted 4/20/2012 on Reuters).
More Chinese property developers have filed for bankruptcy, the South China Morning Post reported on Friday, as some small real-estate companies struggle after more than two years of measures by Beijing to curb home prices in China…
With around 60,000 developers in China, analysts expect more failures among unlisted companies, which would benefit big, geographically-diverse listed developers such as China Vanke 000002.SZ and Evergrande Real Estate (3333.HK)…
Other developers have been selling off assets to pay down debt.
That kind of sounds like a housing bubble. High home prices that Beijing has tried to curb for two years? Selling off assets and filing bankruptcy? Either home prices are too high and people aren’t buying. Leaving a lot of empty houses on the market that developers can’t sell. And as a result can’t repay their debt. Or Beijing has been successful in curbing home prices. And they’re selling below the amount of debt it took to build these houses.
Whatever the reason it’s bad for the housing market. Correcting prices in an overvalued market is painful. As it is always more painful on the down side of irrational exuberance. And housing bubbles. Talk to any U.S. homeowner whose house went underwater in 2008. It ain’t pretty. The U.S. economy could lose a decade of growth before the correction is over. Much like the Japanese during their Lost Decade. Who could also tell you a thing or two about housing bubbles. And painful corrections.
Is it China’s turn? Is it time for their economy to crash and burn? Perhaps. For they do like to meddle in their economy. Just as the U.S. and the Japanese liked to meddle in theirs.
Tags: Bankruptcy, China, Chinese, debt, developers, home prices, housing bubble, real estate