Market Currents
If you step back from the data du jour, "the state of the economy is... gradually...
-
Friday, September 17, 2010, 10:36 AM ETIf you step back from the data du jour, "the state of the economy is... gradually deteriorating," David Levy says. "We are more likely than not going to have another recession in 2011." Talk of a recovery is wrong because of weak housing, declining non-residential construction, "overdone" inventory investment and "stagnant" consumer spending.
Other date
Latest Articles
This news story has 16 comments:
As for foreclosures, he even misinterprets the meaning of those, although many do, apparently. Foreclosures are increasing because banks are more confident and capable, now, of handling the writedowns and the REO sales. Previously, they sat and waited, mostly because they didn't have REO buyers; now, that market has improved substantially. The deadwood is finally moving.
This is good news, both for banks and for housing.
My statement is an opinion. That data speaks for itself.
Foreclosures are up, but they are up because banks are reselling the properties, not banking them. There have been numerous articles written on why banks didn't foreclose, e.g., they didn't want tax and association liabilities, etc. They only foreclose when they can move the properties, even if owners haven't been paying for months.
The criticism of "extend and pretend" has been relntless since this problem started; now, banks are foreclosing and moving the bad debt off the book, and the same critics of "E&P" now lament the foreclsoures.
With some, waking up in the morning is a negative event.
1- they believe the economy is getting better and want to get their financial house in order to be better prepared for it
or
2- they believe the economy is getting worse and want to get their financial house in order to be better prepared for it
That they are moving more quickly is good for them but they are not saying why so one can only speculate, if your a bull its #1 if your a bear its #2, if you are neither its none of the above, Ha
it is clear you have absolutley no idea about the foreclosure process and how it affects a banks capital structure. The reason they drag these out has everything to do with solvency and mark to market requirements. A loss is taken at the sale, not the beginning of the foreclosure process. So they have no interest I processing 8 million foreclosures quicky. This whole thing is a sham. I speak as a somebody right in the middle of the process in every mid and manor city in the country.
Foreclosures reduce bank capital, to the extent it's not increased by new profits. So what?
The banks are on the hook for expenses and laibilities, as well as the writedowns, when they foreclose. That's why, up until recently, they forestalled on foreclosures because they didn't want the writedowns, they didn't want the REO liabilities, and they didn't have REO buyers. That's all changed, as of late, so they're more motivated to accelerate the process. They wouldn't even start a foreclosure process unless they were more confident of moving the properties. (One of the laments heard in the realty sector is that most of the sales are short sales and foreclosures, but that's all good news for the banks.)
Bank profits, liquidity and capital are such that banks are now willing to take the writedown hits by processing the foreclosures and selling the REO's. Those waiting for some new crisis created by this purging activity will have a long, long wait.
As I have maintained before, when the banks didn't process the foreclosures and retained the bad debt on the books, they were excoriated for "extending and pretending." Now,they act to clean up the books and reduce REO inventory, and they're supposedly having a "new problem." It's just that some folks can only see problems, no matter what's happening.
Over time, gradually, quarter to quarter, all that "hidden and pretended" debt will disappear, and then, the pessimists will have to find a new whipping boy.
So what do you think will happen to home prices now that 'they have decided they can sell' all this inventory? And assuming you understand that part of the equation, what happens to the economy when 8 million households have to begin paying rent again after 2 years but have lower incomes to support the fluff in their life? Finally, why do you think the basil committee gave banks 9 years to comply with the new guidelines?
We get several thousand new short sale inquiries every single month. We have houses in the process that are selling for 25% less than offers recieved a year ago. Banks care more about the perception of stability than limiting the losses on these properties. Why do you think they are doing that???
After the wild excursion upwards, off of normal trendlines, housing prices are just about back to the normalized trend. And, as importantly, if not more, the rent-own cost lines are just converging, now.
That's going to limit price downside moves.
mysite.verizon.net/vze.../
It really doesn't matter if banks have 9 years or 90 years to comply with these political exercises. The reality is that they will keep writing down bad debts, quarter after quarter, at their own pace, until they're are gone. Why does it matter that these bad debts are there on or off the books, as if it's some secret? We all know there are bad loans to be amortized, and that's occurring. In fact, it's accelerating, which is good news. Meanwhile, the banks are making profits and cashflows.
The banks would not, are not, and will not amplify the number of active foreclosures unless they remain confident that they'll be absorbed by investor buying demand. That's why foreclosures are presently more active, not because the banks are having some new crisis. It's because they have buyers.
We'll have to wait for a month or two of data, but I think the new plunge in home prices, expected by many, will fail to materialize.
Normalized trendlines effect only the demand side of things, so I agree with you there. However, this issue is all about supply. 8M foreclosures on the books is 2+ years supply in itself. That doesnt count the typical 4M annual sales total by the traditional market or new homes built by starving home builders. This creates a 3-5 year overhang assuming the 5 year ARMS from 2005 and 2006 are about to be a problem as where the 3 year ARMS.
Regarding the investor sector, they have typically made up less than 10% of the market. At the moment they are over 35% of transactions. There is not enough investor money to slop up the excess inventory. My point is there is entirely to much supply on the market. I believe this will be the main reason house prices will have to come down over the next year. Falling home prices hurt spending from Main Street. Eventually there can be no uptrend in the stock market and specifically bank financials if Main Street continue to struggle.
The only thing that can mask a bad balance sheet is a great consumer environment/economy. The data tells a completely different story than the stock market. Banks cannot hide bad balance sheet assets in a bad economy, which is upon us. I'm a contrarian by nature. But I have a different feeling this time. Some of these banks are on borrowed time.
For the present, I am more bullish on economic prospects than you, apparently. I need to see signs that audited corporate data is going south, not some in accurate macro estimate or pundit forecast.
Did you see CAT's announcement today? August stronger than July, which was stronger than June, and they attributed the gains to domestic channels coming back to life. Q3 economic numbers are not going to make the double-dippers happy, I'm betting.
The economy is going to keep the housing market stable, at least, I am also expecting. Unless you're invested in Podunk Community Bank, I wouldn't be too worried about banks. The major regionals and money-center banks are in decent position.
I keep my eye, as always, glued to corporate revenues and profits. All else is noise.