New-Home Sales Tumble 45%

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 29th, 2009, 11:06AM

This is a brutal number: New Home Sales fell last in December 2008 to the lowest level on record — a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 331,000.

Month over month, the drop was 14.7% (±13.9%), and year over year, the collapse was an astounding 44.8% (±10.8%) below December 2007.

If we take the raw sales data (NSA), the level of home sales in 2008 was 482,000, the lowest since 412,000 in 1982, the WSJ reported.

Other data points:

▪ The median sales price of new houses sold in December 2008 was $206,500;

▪ The average sales price was $246,900.

▪ Seasonally adjusted estimate of new houses for sale = 357,000, a supply of 12.9 months at the current sales rate;

▪ This inventory to sales ratio is a new all time high dating back to at least 1963.

▪ 482,000 new homes were sold in 2008, a decrease of 37.8% (±2.7%) below the 2007′s 776,000;

>

Monthly New Home Sales (NSA) 2003-08

via Calculated Risk

>


Sources
:
New Home Sales in December
The Census Bureau, Bloomberg, Jan. 29 2009

http://www.census.gov/const/newressales.pdf

U.S. New-Home Sales Fell in December to Lowest Level on Record
Bob Willis
Bloomberg, Jan. 29 2009

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=alipKvn3NBxg&

New-Home Sales Tumbled in December
BRIAN BLACKSTONE and JEFF BATER
WSJ, JANUARY 29, 2009, 10:15 A.M. ET

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123323520291728517.html

Michael Lewis on Bankruptcy

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 29th, 2009, 10:15AM

Hat tip Paul

Bailout Rate of Return: -1,096%

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 29th, 2009, 9:46AM

Time magazine looks at the TARP, and does some quick number crunching.

Since the Tarp was jammed through in October, Treasury has invested $165 billion into the nation’s eight largest banks.

Those same financial firms are now worth $418 billion less than they were four months ago. CBO calculates the taxpayer’s preferred shares are worth $20 billion less.

The government’s annualized rate of return on its investment in the nation’s largest banks is -1,096%.

As Time snarkily notes, even Bernie Madoff only lost 100%!

>

Source:
Why Your Bank Is Broke
Stephen Gandel
Time, Jan. 29, 2009

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1874702,00.html

Interview with George Soros

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 29th, 2009, 9:30AM

Live! From World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland

Bloomberg, January 28, 2009

LEI: Uptick Unsustainable

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 29th, 2009, 8:15AM

>

My fishing pal and eel skinner Martin Barnes writes:

The Conference Board’s leading economic indicator (LEI) ticked up in December, but we do not view this as the beginning of a sustained economic recovery.

The tick up in the LEI was mainly due to the large positive contribution from real money supply and the yield curve. Meanwhile, measures of the real economy continue to weaken: large declines occurred in building permits, employee hours worked, supplier deliveries, while initial unemployment claims are skyrocketing. It is still unclear that monetary and fiscal policy are effective (private sector borrowing rates have only marginally fallen) and the housing market is still very weak. True, existing home inventories fell in December, but seasonal factors played a large role (inventories always fall during the autumn and winter). Improved activity levels during the spring selling season, should they occur, would be a more accurate signal that the housing market is stabilizing. However, the unemployment rate is set to still rise sharply, which will further undermine consumer confidence and spending, particularly on big ticket items. Bottom line: Economic data will continue to be weak and the LEI will likely slide further before a sustainable bottom is made.

Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency = Disaster

Email this post Print this post
By Guest Author - January 29th, 2009, 7:15AM

I love this excerpt from GMO’s quarterly update, by Jeremy Grantham:

>

1. The Story So Far: Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency = Disaster

“Greed and reckless overconfidence on the part of almost everyone caused us to ignore risk to a degree that is probably unparalleled in breadth and depth in American history. Even more remarkable was the lack of insight and basic competence of our leadership, which led them to ignore this development, or worse, to encourage it. Ingenious new financial instruments certainly facilitated and exaggerated these weaknesses, but they were not the most potent ingredient in our toxic stew. That honor goes to the economic establishment for building over many decades a belief in rational expectations: reasonable, economically-induced behavior that would always guarantee approximately efficient markets. In their desire for mathematical order and elegant models, the economic establishment played down the inconveniently large role of bad behavior, career risk management, and flat-out bursts of irrationality.

The dominant economic theorists so valued orderliness and rationality that they actually grew to believe it, and this false conviction became increasingly dangerous. It was why Greenspan and Bernanke were not sure that bubbles – outbursts of serious irrationality – could even exist. It was why Bernanke, who had studied the bubble of 1929, could still not see it as proof of irrationality and could still view the Depression (à la Milton Friedman) as a mere consequence of incredibly bad, easily avoidable policy measures.

Of more recent importance, it was why Bernanke could dismiss a dangerous 100-year bubble in U.S. housing as being nonexistent. It was why Hyman Minsky was marginalized as an economist despite his brilliant insight of the “near inevitability” of periodic financial crises. It was why the suggestion in academic circles of stock market inefficiencies, let alone major dysfunctionality, was considered a heresy. It was why Burton Malkiel could rationalize the 1987 crash as being an efficient response to 12 or so triggers. These triggers, however, had a trivial weakness: seasoned portfolio managers at the time had never even heard of most of them. Never underestimate the power of a dominant academic idea to choke off competing ideas, and never underestimate the unwillingness of academics to change their views in the face of evidence. They have decades of their research and their academic standing to defend.

The incredibly inaccurate efficient market theory was believed in totality by many of our financial leaders, and believed in part by almost all. It left our economic and governmental establishment sitting by confi dently, even as a lethally dangerous combination of asset bubbles, lax controls, pernicious incentives, and wickedly complicated instruments led to our current plight. “Surely none of this could happen in a rational, effi cient world,” they seemed to be thinking. And the absolutely worst aspect of this belief set was that it led to a chronic underestimation of the dangers of asset bubbles breaking – the very severe loss of perceived wealth and the stranded debt that comes with a savage write-down of assets. Well, it’s nice to get that off my chest once again!

>

Source:
GMO QUARTERLY LETTER January 2009
Jeremy Grantham

http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_4Q08.pdf

~~~

Jeremy Grantham co-founded GMO in 1977. Prior to GMO’s founding, Mr. Grantham was co-founder of Batterymarch Financial Management in 1969 where he recommended commercial indexing in 1971, one of several claims to being first. He began his investment career as an economist with Royal Dutch Shell. Mr. Grantham serves as GMO’s Chairman and is an active member of GMO’s asset allocation division. He has also served on investment boards of several non-profit organizations. Mr. Grantham has been featured in Forbes, Barron’s and Business Week and is routinely quoted by the financial press. He earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Sheffield (U.K.) and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School.

The Moral Hazard of the “Bad Bank”

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 29th, 2009, 6:45AM

I’ve been closely following the various (new & improved!) bailout plans for the big banks — from the modified TARP to the recapitalizations to the “bad bank” plan.

I’ve noticed something I find a bit disturbing about our new Treasury Secretary: He has not yet fully come to terms with his new job, role — and boss. Granted, he’s been in the job for only two days. But given the extraordinary circumstances the financial sector and the economy is in, it is important for the Treasury Secretary to get up to speed as soon as possible.

Consider this statement from Geithner, who said that Treasury  is considering a “range of options” for its financial rescue plan, with the goal of preserving the private banking system“We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we’d like to do our best to preserve that system.”

No! Defending these idiots was your old gig. In the new job, you no longer work for the cretins responsible for bringing down the global economy. Please stop rationalizing their behavior, and preserving the status quo!

Yesterday’s 13% surge in bank stocks is a clue as to what an obscene taxpayer giveaway this “bad bank” plan is — its free money for the firms that caused the problems, many of whom still have the same incompetent  management in place that caused the problem. Purging toxic assets from bank balance sheets, without punishing the management, shareholders and creditors of these institutions for their horrific judgment will only encourage more of the same in the future. Its moral hazard writ large.

A few reminders for Geithner that are of the utmost importance:

  • ▪ You no longer work for the Banks: The NY Fed is a private corporation, doing the bidding of the FOMC and its private sector owners — primarily, the primary dealers. In other words, the President of the NY Fed works for the biggest commercial and investment banks in New York. That is no longer operational for you.
  • ▪ As Treasury Secretary, your immediate boss is the President, and your ultimate charge are the citizens of the United States, and the finances of the country.
  • ▪ When any conflict comes into play between the nation and the banks, you as Treasury Secretary are on the side of the Nation.
  • ▪ You cannot serve two masters, especially when they are in direct conflict with each other.

When the post-script to this era gets written, I suspect we will learn all sorts of unsavory facts about the former Treasury Secretary, and how he unfortunately had a tendency to believe he was working for the benefit of Goldman Sachs.

The new Treasury Secretary has that mental muscle memory of who his former employers were. He needs to concentrate on the new job, and who he works for. Unfortunately, the early signs suggest that he has yet to figure this out. Let’s hope that changes. Fast.

>

UPDATE:  January 29, 2009 at 11:45 am

I was just on the radio with Mike Norman, who insisted that the NY Fed is not a private company owned by the primary dealers.

Um, wrong:

Article IV – stock of the bank
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/ny_bylaws.html

Ownership of stock of the Bank, issued to member depository institutions in accordance with law, may be evidenced by advices signed by the President or his/her designate, or by certificates bearing the seal of the Bank and the signature of the Corporate Secretary or an Assistant Corporate Secretary.

>

Sources:
Geithner Says ‘Range of Options’ Considered for Banks
Robert Schmidt and Rebecca Christie
Bloomberg, Jan. 28 2009

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCc8REieouZM&

Geithner Says Plan for Banks Is in the Works
STEPHEN LABATON and EDMUND L. ANDREWS
NYT, January 28, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/business/economy/29bailout.html

Bylaws, Board of Directors
Federal Reserve Bank of New York
December 20, 2007

http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/ny_bylaws.html

NYU’s Roubini: “Nowhere to Hide” from Global Slowdown

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 29th, 2009, 12:30AM

Nouriel Roubini of NYU’s Stern School of Business is making fresh headlines, as he’s forecasting an even more dire outlook for the global economy. In an interview yesterday with Bloomberg News in Zurich, Roubini said:

* The U.S. will lose 6 million jobs with unemployment reaching at least 9 percent.
* The U.S. economy will expand 1 percent at most in 2010.
* Economic growth in China will slow to less than 5 percent.
* He reiterated his statements that the biggest U.S. banks are insolvent, and that losses could reach $3.6 trillion, far exceeding his original estimates.

Treasury Plan Lifts Hopes; Fed Disappoints

Email this post Print this post
By Jack McHugh - January 28th, 2009, 11:48PM

Good Evening: Our capital markets had a lot to chew on today, and different markets may have offered hints with regard to near term direction. Last night came word that the Obama Treasury department is considering a plan to set up a “bad bank” to absorb toxic assets from the financial system, a possibility which sat very well with global equity investors. All the chatter swirling around the bad bank concept made it difficult to assess the impact of the FOMC’s vague announcement later in the day about potential open market securities purchases (a.k.a. Quantitative Easing). Net, net, today’s session can be summed up as one of hope for equities, disappointment for Treasurys, and long term bullish for gold.

CNBC broke the “bad bank” story last night after the close, and stock index futures here and around the world jumped for joy (see below). Details of the plan are still lacking and will probably not be announced until next week, but the desire to hope and believe that a magic bullet can save us from the credit crisis apparently still runs deep. Recall that in the autumn of 2007, stocks rallied to all time highs on hopes the Fed’s easing campaign would stop the subprime mess in its tracks. Well, the fed funds rate is hovering near the zero mark, the Fed has set up numerous lending facilities and has nearly tripled the size of its balance sheet. And yet, some 16 months after Mr. Market’s first post-crisis end zone dance, the crisis is anything but over. The TARP was also hailed as a savior, but the first $350 billion has been deployed only to be chewed up in more credit losses by participating financial institutions. Last month brought a promise of a large stimulus package from the Obama administration and was also hailed as a “solution”, but what it will look like after Congress finishes with it is anyone’s guess. Advice as to what to do next has been flying in from all quarters, but the common bond these ideas share is the hope we’ll soon see the great credit crisis of 2007/2008 in the rearview mirror.

Optimism about the “bad bank” concept caused investors to push stocks 2% to 3% higher this morning before they settled into a sideways range ahead of word from the FOMC. The statement itself was a disappointment, at least to Treasury investors. As BAC/MER points out in their piece below, today’s release hardly differed from the one the FOMC issued back in December. Rather than announcing it would indeed intervene to buy Treasurys, the Fed could only say it was “prepared to purchase longer-term Treasury securities if evolving circumstances indicate that such transactions would be particularly effective in improving conditions in private credit markets” (source: Bloomberg article below).

Fearing this 2009 Fed promise would end up filed in the same wastebasket the Fed’s 2003 Treasury buying scheme, Treasury investors registered their disappointment by selling bonds (see below). Rates on long dated Treasury securities rose 14 bps to 18 bps. Even equity market participants were a bit underwhelmed by the FOMC’s announcement, and stocks sold off immediately after the release. Regaining their composure, and with renewed hopes for the “bad bank” plan, investors pushed stocks back to nearly their best levels by day’s end. The major averages closed with gains of between 2.5% (Dow) to 3.85% (Dow Transports). Currency traders who had been hoping the Fed might provide a tailwind to short dollar positions felt the need to buy a few greenbacks instead. Down 0.5% prior to the FOMC statement, the U.S. dollar index finished slightly in the plus column. Commodity prices were up both prior to and then after the Fed text came out, and the CRB index closed with a gain of 1%.

Despite the Fed’s muttered promises, it seems like there is now a decent chance equity investors will dust off and then put on their old rally caps. Sentiment is always swinging from belief to disbelief and back again, but the “bad bank” plan is one investors have been pining for since the dark days after Lehman Brothers slipped under the waves. Toss in Mr. Obama’s stimulus plan on top of it, and “Resolution Trust II” might just goose equities for a spell. Obviously, the details of each plan have to be worked out, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see a “delayed January effect” type of rally that favors whatever has been out of favor (e.g. financials, small caps, etc.). This call may sound like a change in my recent dour outlook, but it’s only a short term switch and one I could quickly abandon. I still think that no matter where a rally takes us in the days or weeks ahead, we are still in for some disappointment later this year when these “magic bullets” fail to find their mark.

Let’s also keep in mind that the “bad bank” plan and Mr. Obama’s stimulus plan will require a lot of Treasury borrowing, and the long bond has been blanching at this prospect of late. Long term Treasurys may end up needing the Fed to buy them to keep the back end of the yield curve from reaching for the sky. Other governments around the world have similar plans for sovereign issuance, so all government bonds look suspect to me in the years ahead. And, should Fed decide to support the government bond market, then the one currency no government can devalue or manipulate should shine. The last article you see below tells the story of how Greenlight’s David Einhorn has finally decided to take the advice of his “Grandpa Ben”. Not trusting governments to do anything but debase their currencies over time, the elder Mr. Einhorn told his grandson decades ago to invest in gold and gold mining companies. Given what Uncle Ben (Bernanke) has done to date, and considering what he might later do to monetize Treasury debt, I will side with Grandpa Ben.

– Jack McHugh

U.S. Stocks Gain, Extending Global Rally, on ‘Bad Bank’ Plan

FDIC May Run ‘Bad Bank’ in Plan to Purge Toxic Assets

Treasuries Drop as Fed Offers Little Guidance on Debt Purchases

Greenlight Founder Takes Grandfather’s Advice on Gold

Minor shifts no real changes.pdf

The Battle for the Arctic

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 28th, 2009, 7:15PM

Scientists from the U.S., Canada and Russia race to map the Arctic Ocean under the looming deadline of a UN treaty. Adapted from a one hour documentary on CBC-TV.

January 27, 2009

46 queries. 1.022 seconds.