28/1/20: What Doesn't Work in NYC Probably Won't Work in Dublin

As Irish politicians talk rent controls, here is some interesting evidence from NYC's recently passed rent control rules (since June 2019): https://reason.com/2020/01/27/totally-predictable-consequences-of-new-yorks-rent-regulations/.

Summary:

• Sales of apartment buildings in NYC fell by 36 percent in 2019, and that the total spend on purchases fell by 40 percent. Not all of this is down to rent controls changes - NYC is grossly over-supplied in the premium segment of the market and traditionally large-ticket buyers are staying out of the market (Russian and Middle Eastern money) or selling (Russian and Chinese) due to geopolitical and legal ownership threats.
• "The prices investors were paying for rent-stabilized units—where allowable rent increases are set by the government and usually capped at around 1 or 2 percent per year—fell by 7 percent." More direct evidence for less than 6 months of new rules being in force.
• "... landlords are reportedly cutting back on the money that they're putting into the buildings that they do own... [as] 69 percent of building owners have cut their spending on apartment upgrades by more than 75 percent since the passage of the state's rent regulations. Another 11 percent of the landlords in the survey decreased investments in their properties by more than 50 percent." More direct evidence things are not going in the desired direction.
• "The new law's limits on recouping the costs of renovating apartments mean it is often more  financially feasible to leave old apartments vacant."
• The lower end of the market is probably most hit: "The Commercial Observer reports that the new rent laws are encouraging small- and mid-sized landlords to exit the market entirely, writing that "many property owners have woken up to a world where their buildings are worth 30 to 50 percent less than they were a year ago."" 
• And another quote: "Middle-class and working-class neighborhoods, ... would be at particular risk."

Thoughts on why this should work any differently for Ireland are welcomed in the Irish mainstream-populist media.

19/12/19: Irish Planning Permissions 3Q 2019: Some Goods, Some Bads

The latest Irish data for Planning Permissions approvals is a mix of some good news, some bad news and some ugly trends. Here is the summary of them for 3Q 2019:

1. Overall, planning permissions numbers for housing applications are up 4.02% y/y - this is the good news. Better news: cumulative 1Q-3Q 2019 numbers are up 7.12%  on the same period in 2018.
2. New dwelling planning permissions are up 6.01% y/y - this too is the good news. Also exciting: cumulative 9 months permissions are up 6.33% y/y.
3. Other new construction ex-dwellings permissions are up 6.29% - another bit of good news.
4. Extensions and alterations-related planning permissions are up only 1.42%. But this is offset by the cumulative 9 months gain of 7.65% y/y. Which is a nice number.
5. Bad news: private homes permissions are up only 1.13% y/y in 3Q 2019, and worse news: the same are down massive 5.57% y/y on a cumulative basis for the first 9 months of 2019.
6. Great news: apartments permissions (for units, not aggregated over schemes) are up massive 80.15% in 3Q 2019 y/y and are cumulatively up 86.81% y/y for the first nine months of 2019.
7. Average area of the houses for which new permissions are grated is up 0.82% in 3Q 2019 compared to 3Q 2018, but average area of the apartments with new permissions granted is down big time: down 14% y/y in 3Q 2019 and on average down 7.1% in the first 9 months of 2019.

So we are planning more apartments (good), not as significantly more homes (bad), but our apartments planned are getting smaller (bad). 

Now for some other bad news, or trends, rather. 

Given the demographic demand and the state of construction industry in the post-crisis period, we are continuing to under-supply new housing to the markets. Based on the assumed demand for 25,000 new homes annually, cumulative undersupply of new permissions to build residential units since 1Q 2010 currently stands at around 81,900 units and although this number is finally declining (since 4Q 2017), at the current rate of new planning permissions approvals (Q1-Q3 2019 figure), it would take almost 6.5 years to clear the backlog. That is, assuming in the mean time, there is no new recession to knock out the wind from the building and construction sector, and/or no significant inward / return migration to boost demand. Accounting for depreciation at ca 4100 units per annum (https://www.savills.com/insight-and-opinion/savills-news/273944/john-mccartney--housing-obsolescence-commonly-overestimated--and-depreciation-heavily-concentrated-in-rural-ireland) extends this horizon to 10.3 years. 

16/12/19: There is no Inflation, folks... none...

There is no inflation, folks. This is what the Fed been telling us for some time now. And the CPI figures, on aggregate, say the same.

Unless it is if you need health services or health insurance, or if you happen to *want* education. These discretionary items of spending, avoidable by choice of a prudent consumer, are, of course, exceptions to the rule...

Note, of course, the standard inflation measurements of price changes in healthcare are a bit obscure too, as they average-out effects of private insurance inflation by adding old-age and low-income insurance purchases by the state:

But, never mind, as I said above, these are purely discretionary spending items, so we should not let them cloud out the net official results that show 'no inflation'.

28/5/19: Why some long trend estimates start looking shaky for Ireland's property markets

There are many ways for analysing the long-term trends in real estate prices. One way is to use dynamics for the periods when price appreciation was consistent with underlying economic growth fundamentals and project price levels forward at the rates, on average, compatible with these periods.

And some exercises in assessing Irish house prices relative to trend are starting to sound like an early alarm bell going off.

In Ireland's case, organic growth-based period of the Celtic Tiger can be traced to, roughly, 1992/1993 through 1998. In terms of real estate prices (housing), this period corresponds to the post-1987 recovery of 1988-1990, followed by a house price 'recession' of 1991-1993 and onto the period of recovery and economic growth-aligned appreciation of 1994-1996. During this period, average price inflation in Irish house prices was 3.94% per annum.

Using the data from 1970 through 2018 based on the time series from the BIS and CSO, we can compare current price indices to those that would have prevailed were the 1988-1996 trend growth to continue through 2018. Chart below shows the results:

Several things worth noting:

1.  At the end of 2018, Irish house price index stood some 5.7 percent below where it would have been if the longer term trend prevailed from 1997 on.
2. Taking into the account moderating house price growth of 2016-2018 and projecting house prices forward from 2018 levels onto 2022 shows that by the end of 1Q 2020, Irish house prices can be expected to catch up with the longer-term trend.
3. The longer-term trend does capture quite well the effect of the massive price bubble of 1998-2007: the trend line hits almost exactly the 2009-2018 index average at 2010-2011. 
4. The pre-crisis peak levels of house prices can be expected to reach (on-trend) by 2022 implying that the house price bubble of 1998-2007 has, in effect, accelerated house price inflation by roughly 15 years, or 50-62 percent of the 25-30 year mortgage duration, which is consistent with the peak-to-trough decline in Irish house prices (53.3 percent) during the crisis.
5. The drop in Irish house prices during the crisis overshot the long-term trend by roughly 31 percent - a steep price to pay for massive excesses of the Celtic Garfield era of 2003-2007.
6. At the start of 2004, Irish house prices were 50 percent above their long term trend line, which is pretty much bang on with my estimate back in 2004 that I published here: https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2016/01/10116-my-2004-article-on-irish-property.html as a warning to Irish policymakers - a warning, as we all know well - that was ignored.
7. Referencing 2018 data, while the price dynamics so far appear to be catching up with the longer run trend, there is an increasing risk of a new price bubble forming, should price inflation continue unabated. For example, at an average rate of house price inflation of 11.34 percent (2014-2018 average), by the end of 2022, Irish house prices can exceed long-term trend by more than 15 percent.

Of course, a warning is due: this exercise is just one of many way to assess longer term sustainability trends in house price dynamics.  

For example, historical average rate of growth in house prices across 24 countries reported by BIS for 1970-2006 period is 2.34 percent per annum. Were we to take this rate of growth from 1998 through 2018 as the longer term trend indicator, Irish house prices would stand 32.7 percent above the long-run trend levels in 2018, implying that 

• Irish house prices reached long run equilibrium around 1Q 2015, and
• At the end of 2018, we were close more than 1/4 of the way toward the next bubble peak, in which case, by the end of 2021 we should be half way there.

Numbers are not simple. But numbers are starting to warrant some concerns. 

23/4/19: Property, Property and More Property: U.S. Household Wealth Bubble

According to the St. Luis Fed, U.S. household wealth has reached a historical high of 535% of the U.S. GDP (see: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-16/where-inflation-hiding-asset-prices).

There is a problem, however, with the above data: it reflects some dodgy ways of counting 'household wealth'. For two primary reasons: firstly, it ignores concentration risk arising from wealth inequality, and secondly, it ignores concentration risk arising from households' exposure to property markets. A good measure of liquidity risk controlled allocation of wealth is ownership of liquid equities (note: equities, of course, and are subject to Fed-funded bubble dynamics). The chart below - via https://www.topdowncharts.com/single-post/2019/04/22/Weekly-SP-500-ChartStorm---21-April-2019 shows a pretty dire state of equity markets (the source of returns on asset demand side being swamped over the last decade by shares buybacks and M&As), but it also shows that households did not benefit materially from the equities bubble.

In other words, controlling for liquidity risk, the Fed's meme of historically high household wealth is seriously challenged. And controlling for wealth inequality (distributional features of wealth), it is probably dubious overall.

So here's the chart showing just how absurdly property-dependent (households' home equity valuations in red line, index starting at 100 at the end of the Global Financial Crisis) the Fed 'wealth' figures (blue line, same starting index) are:

In fact, dynamically, rates of growth in household home equity have been far in excess of the rates of growth in other assets since 2012.  In that, the dynamics of the current 'sound economy' are identical (and actually more dramatic) to the 2000-2006 bubble: property, property and more property.

Daily Economics Update 22/03/2009

So we are in a rally, at least in the US.
Financials are again in the lead, as chart below showing.10-year treasuries rise, dollar falls
What can one expect from a relatively rational(ized) market when it is faced with a renewed $1trillion push of cash into draining the toxic pool of mortgages-linked securities.

The DJIA ended gaining 6.84% to close at 7,775.86, the S&P 500 closed at 822.92 (+7.08%), the Nasdaq Comp ended the day at 1,555.77 (op 6.76%).

A friend - high up in international finance - asked me again if this is a sign of a thaw. I again said, it is not - just a rational reaction to a massive push on the dollar. Real values are not changing much, but what is happening is the wholesale repricing for the dollar to reach 1.45-1.50 to euro once again. Here is an illustration of why I am still not buying the permanent rebound hypothesis (courtesy of dshort.com):
What about the Geithner Plan (GP)? Well, whatever one can say about it, words 'original' or 'innovative' are not something that comes to mind. It falls short of a nationalization and nationalization is what will probably be needed. Not a wholesale take over, but certainly not a 20% equity take by the Feds in exchange for a 97% capitalization, as the GP envisions.

Financial services lap-dog economists loves the thing, though. For example, one senior economist from Wells Fargo claimed that the plan "will go a long way toward getting banks... to lend more aggressively and break the deleveraging feedback loop" now in place. This is the lunatic asylum stuff, for it assumes, without even stating so much, that there are hordes of willing borrowers gathering just outside the banks doors. And it further assumes that deleveraging is bad. Given that the whole mess was brought upon us by the excessive leveraging in the first place, either I am losing my mind, or the entire world is now rushing head on to create a new bubble in place of the old one.

The main problem with GP is that it comes on top of the TARP and a host of other asset-purchasing arrangements. Now, all were offering lenders some set of prices for distressed assets. These prices were set arbitrarily high to incentivize the banks to unload their troubled loans. But clearly, TARP was not sufficient, so the GP will have to set prices even higher - at some premium to TARP to further induce the loan holders to part with their distressed paper. And here is a catch. Since inception of TARP, the quality of the loans still on the books in banks have fallen - steadily and rather rapidly. Will this imply that investors are now being incentivized to bid for loans at a price above their true market value? Of course it will and this is precisely why the Feds are offering the bidders a 97% financing package in return for 80% equity in the loans purchased, with Federal financing done on the back of non-recourse loans (loans that are collateralized against the value of the securities purchased alone).

The GP will in effect act as a subsidy to the banks. Hence that nice climb in banks shares in recent days. Geithner's idea is to have a free lunch served to the banks today, for which the taxpayers will pay tomorrow and the restaurant staff (the investors) will get paid a day later. It is, as the Calculated Risk blog puts it, "a European style put option - it can only be exercised at expiration. The taxpayers will pay the price of the option in the future, the investors receive any future benefit, and the banks receive the current value of the option in cash. Geithner apparently believes the future value will be zero, and that is a possibility. If so, this is a great plan - if not, the taxpayers will pay that future value (and it could be significant)."

Note to the Derivatives students: this could have made a good question for exam...

On a somewhat more positive note: sales of existent homes were up 5.1% in February. Although this figure - the largest percentage gain since July 2003 - (a) comes after a 4.6% contraction in yearly sales and (b) was the result of deep price discounts (especially due to rising tide of foreclosures and short sales that accounted for 45% of all transactions), sales rose in all regions. Full 65% of the potential buyers expect the market to bottom out within the next 12 months.

Inventories of unsold homes - once again a sign of deepening foreclosure pools - on the market rose by 5.2% to 3.80 million, equating to a 9.7-month supply at the February sales pace. Although seasonally inventories usually rise ca 5% in February, this time around the increase came after a prolonged period of stalled construction activity. In other words, there is little reason for rising new inventories other than an acceleration in forced sales and foreclosures.

In fact, just as the subprime tsunami recedes by May-June 2009, the next wave of homeowners defaults is about to start hitting the US markets, as the following two charts (sourced here and here) illustrate:

Can lower interest rates spur housing market growth?

In an earlier post I wrote:
Elsewhere in Europe and the US, similar [to the Irish banks] capitalization schemes have failed to reduce the cost of corporate borrowing or to restart lending to the households. In the UK, a £43 billion capital injection scheme has been in place for almost two months and the supply of consumer and business credit continues to fall - whether due to demand slowdown, lenders withdrawal from the market or both. In the US, massive banks’ capital supports have lowered the mortgage rates, but there is no meaningful increase in new mortgages uptake.

Here is more evidence that lower rates and re-capitalizations of banks are not driving new mortgages applications up:
"British interest rates have already been slashed to 2%, their lowest level since 1951. ...Amit Kara, an economist at UBS ...expects rates to be cut to just 1% next week and to 0.5% by March. British interest rates have never gone below 2% since the central bank was created in 1694,"
but
"Mortgage approvals for house purchase ...fell to just 27,000 in November, the lowest level since the series began in January 1999 and a third of its level a year ago."

Ditto in the US, where (Marketwatch): "The average rate on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages fell for the ninth week in a row this week, setting another record low". The 5.1% mortgage rate recorded last week is the lowest since the data started in 1971.

Another report by the Mortgage Bankers Association (see details here) showed that the resurgence in the US mortgages issuance (155% year-on-year) on the foot of dramatic interest rates declines is accounted for by re-financing applications (83%). Of the remainder, some 2/3 of mortgages growth was due to the Federal Government purchases.

In short, the answer to the question in the title is NO.

Lower interest rates are only a part of the solution, but the paramount condition for rekindling the markets is that households must de-leverage significantly enough to bring their debt in line with their after-tax incomes. This is a lengthy and painful process that can be aided only by

• income tax cuts or rebates (US);
• consumption tax cuts (UK); and
• liberal personal bankruptcy laws (US).

Even with these in place it has taken US households 6 months of straight contraction in indebtedness to start (cautiously) testing the re-mortgage market waters again.

None of these policies are even being tried in Ireland!