• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Housing Bubble Bursting?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Asset classes loose their diversification of risk

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/five-ways-make-your-investment/story.aspx?guid=%7BF946DFC7%2D58B9%2D4B27%2D952D%2D248F7DF191E0%7D

Traditionally, diversification has meant pairing U.S. and international stocks with bonds, cash, real estate and other alternatives such as hedge funds and commodities. When the Standard & Poor's 500 Index peaked seven years ago this month, for example, alternatives including U.S. small-cap stocks, international stocks, hedge funds, commodities, gold, Treasury bills and high-quality bonds all brought meaningful diversification to the U.S. market benchmark.

It's different this time. A new Merrill Lynch study shows that small-caps and international stocks, which not coincidentally have posted stellar gains in the last few years, are moving virtually in lockstep with the S&P 500, essentially eliminating their once-distinct diversification benefit. Hedge funds and real estate also are increasingly indistinguishable from the index.

As a result, investors are being exposed to an even greater danger -- that their portfolios won't be diversified enough to shield them from an unwelcome market shock.

Proper diversification means owning a collection of investments that financial types call "uncorrelated." That's a fancy way of showing that returns aren't closely linked. Holding investments that move independently from each other dampens a portfolio's volatility and the emotional swings that invariably accompany it.
 
FYI, New Century stock, which was around $51 a couple of months ago is worth about $1.50 (or less) today. Glad I didn't own it.

Two things that are being missed in this discussion (at least I missed them) are that the reason New Century and others like them are having problems is largely because they cannot find investors. These outfits prepackage and lend out money that has been provided for them to loan. When Citigroup, and other similar investors withdraw the funds, the sub-prime is basically out of business. It could be just a case of good management on the part of the investor no longer willing to invest. However, the housing stock, at some value, still backs up that investment.

The second thing that seems to be missed here is the power of derivatives... both to increase profits and risk. What you wanna bet that someone in the derivatives market takes a real bath before its over (if they haven't already).

Still, when I pulled stats this morning for the last 30 days, and compared them with the same 30 days last year, the results were enlightening. Last year: 183 sales, avg DOM 119, Avg SP $107,288, Median SP $83,500. This year: 160 sales, avg DOM 129, Avg SP $103,033, Median SP $89,950.

Looks like a slight cooling, not a bubble bust in this market. Add to that the fact that last year's figures are set, but this years will still have some late submissions in all probability.

Things I worry about now (at least a little bit):

1) all the hype will cause money to become less available to an extent that it will damage the housing market

2) stock market losses from sub-prime and Fannie's known shenanigans in accounting will cause loss of confidence, which will bleed over into other industries

3) some additional shock (as yet unknown) will cause disruption in the economy

I heard an article this morning where short term potential problems for the economy were rated. Terrorism was #1. Too much individual debt was #2. Housing, specifically, was not on the list... but, it is a component of #2. It's not just a housing bubble problem, the problem is that Americans have borrowed too much money.
 
Inflation adjusted GDP is quoted. I wonder if that 57% home price increase is inflation adjusted?

If not, the comparison is more like 57% vs 27% based upon 2000-2005 GDP increase not adjusted for inflation. Darned alarmists.

Randolph, maybe you could validate those numbers in your spare time:)
I am not going to do ALL the dirty work but for those who want the history over the last several years of the CPI, here is a chart.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Annual_Inflation/annual_inflation_chart.htm

Here is a table of CPI by month all the way back to 1914.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=0
 
Two things that are being missed in this discussion (at least I missed them) are that the reason New Century and others like them are having problems is largely because they cannot find investors. These outfits prepackage and lend out money that has been provided for them to loan. When Citigroup, and other similar investors withdraw the funds, the sub-prime is basically out of business. It could be just a case of good management on the part of the investor no longer willing to invest. However, the housing stock, at some value, still backs up that investment.
Steve, what you are missing is that the pledge to pay back a loan with interest and fees is essentially no good for subprime loans. Also, the asset that backs the pledge has a value that is not known. It is, after all, a changing real estate market from when the subprime loan was made and values are either flat or falling in more than half of the markets since that time.

Lenders and their source of funds (investment bankers and investors) are in the business of loaning out money with the expectation of being paid back. They are not in the collection business on dead beat borrowers nor are they wanting to make money available to mortgage entities that would loan to them.

For the remaining lenders willing to deal in the subprime lending, they are refusing to make 100% LTV loans and they have tighten their underwriting standards, which eliminates a large segment of past borrowers.

The second thing that seems to be missed here is the power of derivatives... both to increase profits and risk. What you wanna bet that someone in the derivatives market takes a real bath before its over (if they haven't already).
Where have you been Steve? Go look at the ABX trading. Look at the articles on CDOs (collateralized debt obligation) and hedge funds. I posted an article of how the accounting works on CDOs; they are not marked to market, their current value has to be reported on a rating agency's downgrade of that particular CDO bond issuance. Moodys, Fitch, S&P, all have something to loose if and when they downgrade those CDO bonds. What is that? They rated them when they were issued. Might that have a negative consequence to their business?

When the CDO bond rating falls below BBB- (investment grade), pension funds, hedge funds, insurance companies, any public institution has to sell them because by law they cannot invest in anything that is rated below investment grade. That will cause a disruption in the liquidity of that market. Prices will free fall like New Century stock for the same reason; mutual funds and hedge funds are dumping their holdings.


I heard an article this morning where short term potential problems for the economy were rated. Terrorism was #1. Too much individual debt was #2. Housing, specifically, was not on the list... but, it is a component of #2. It's not just a housing bubble problem, the problem is that Americans have borrowed too much money.
Debt is only a problem when it is not paid on time or not paid at all.

What you should be worried about Steve, is that the losses in the subprime debt market will not be contained. Those losses may spread to other markets. The key is the housing market and its ability to absorb the shock. Credit for housing has been reduced. That certainly will affect demand for housing. The cash out refinance that was adding to the consumer spending is reduced. You need a rising house price market to sustain that free equity gain to borrow against and to make good the bad loans on them.

As the housing market spirals down in both volume and price, it will cause more losses to the economy as a whole and those losses will spread into other markets, other countries. Asset diversification is loosing its uncorrelated classes.
 
Steve,
I am going to add the ripple effect of the sub prime problem in the housing market that you are missing to what Randalph pointed out.
The sub prime lenders had 20% of total mortgage market since 2005. They were lending to home buyers who could not get prime loans. When the sub prime lenders are gone, it means 20% of home buyers are gone. This is one negative effect on housing market. 20% less buyers.
With sub prime lenders gone, the foreclosed homes are going to come back on market. Since 20% of homebuyers since 2005 had sub prime loans and about 75% of them are going to default their loans, there would be a massive foreclosed homes in the market. Foreclosed homes still have some values but not their original values when they were bought by sub prime loans but they may have 50% or 75% of their purchased value. These values are going to be much lower than what is the current market value because they are short sales REO and there are also 20% less buyers out there to buy them. And this the second negative effect on the market.
Less buyers and more short REO sales means disaster for any market in any neighborhood
 
CDO is more a general term. I think the term for mortgage or loan is called CLO or CMO and for bond is called CBO. The rating of the loan portfolio is called securitization which is based on the tranche or slices of that portfolio because they want to spread the risk. Each portfolio which consists of 200-400 loans has different tranche so the risk is spreaded. If they rated it AA, it means it has more prime loans than sub prime loans. It seems that rating agencies had more than standard sub prime loans in their portfolios in their recent ratings.
 
Mortgage Defaults May Reach $225 Billion, Lehman Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=avLcIK2vDO3Q&refer=home

Irvine, California-based New Century Financial Corp., the second largest subprime home lender
who is the first largest sub prime lender? I always thought it was New century

A large proportion of subprime borrowers live in the same neighborhood as their prime counterparts, Lehman said, which may cause some ``contagion.''
I call it ripple effect

Investors in mortgage-backed bonds will probably take about $100 billion in losses from defaults on the about $10 trillion in home-loans outstanding, while companies that hold un-securitized mortgages face about $175 billion in losses, according to a March 9 report from Citigroup Inc. bond analysts led by Rahul Parulekar. Defaults will total about $590 billion, they said.
I know investors who hold securitized mortgages but who are those who hold UN-Securitized mortgages? I thought all of them were rated and securitized.
 
Moh and Randolph... I didn't miss any of that... just missed its discussion on this thread. Of course, I don't make a career out of this thread, so it's possible (obvious now) that it has been discussed.

The difference is my take on what it means.

Steve, what you are missing is that the pledge to pay back a loan with interest and fees is essentially no good for subprime loans. Also, the asset that backs the pledge has a value that is not known.
I've appraised several sub-primes over the last ten years. Not a single one of them has gone into foreclosure. Therefore, the pledge to pay back must not be "essentially no good" in the market I work in.

I believe I pointed out that the value is not known, when I said there is an asset with some value. That is the difference between this situation and the tech stock situation. In this situation, there is an asset with some value, and there are people in the market who want the asset. In the case of the tech stock bubble, there was no asset at all for many of those companies... and, no history of profit. That is really the main thing I was talking about in my post, and you are probably right about some of the points you made. The fact that this situation is very different than the tech stock situation, in spite of what the article said, does not mean that investors will not lose money... if they make bad decisions, it is obvious they will.
 
Since 20% of homebuyers since 2005 had sub prime loans and about 75% of them are going to default their loans, there would be a massive foreclosed homes in the market.

I very much doubt that, Moh.

You also have to remember that "subprime" and "alt A" are often used interchangebly, overlap product types and don't always mean lying, deadbeat borrower.

Often a subprime loan would be used in lieu of a Freddie/Fannie type conventional loan in order to avoid PMI. Sometime the numbers just work better that way, particularly if you use an ARM and plan to refi or sell prior to adjustment.
 
Last edited:
This credit collapse is an unequivocally important event. Because the ability of anybody with a pulse to get a loan for any amount is what drove the real estate market, and the real estate market is what drove the economy.


Sometime in the next three to six months, the real-estate market will basically just freeze up. Of course, inventories are going to explode and prices will eventually drop rather dramatically as a vicious cycle feeds on itself.
One who does is Lou Ranieri, sort of the father of the mortgage bond market. In a recent interview, he warned: "This is the leading edge of the storm. . . . If you think this is bad, imagine what it's going to be like in the middle of the crisis." In his opinion, more than $100 billion of home loans are likely to default.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top