Housing inventory glut gets fatter

What does the current data show about the real estate market overall? Across the country in the last year the median price has actually increased slightly. It looks like the data for the calendar year 2007 will show a decline for about 2%. Some areas have been much harder hit with median prices dropping over 10% (Las Vegas, Florida, Phoenix…). Mortgages any of 1) questionable credit score 2) jumbo loan or to a lessor extent with little money down are becoming hard to come by. Foreclosures are increasing dramatically. Builders are having a great deal of difficulty selling new housing they have built.

Still the decline in median prices is far from as dramatic as many feel (there have been large changes in the market but it still has not lead to a crash in home values or even a noticeable decline in most places). The increasing supply of houses for sale will put pressure on housing prices to decline. But without a significant continued increase in foreclosures (which is possible but it is still difficult to predict how large an increase we will see) I still do not believe we will see dramatic price declines in most of the country. The possibility (of say declines of over 15% in a year or two) is much higher now than it was in the last couple of years.

Post from 2004 on the real estate bubble worries then – again prices would have to fall a great deal to fall below the prices in 2004 (possible but not very likely to happen in the coming years). The real estate problems are significant and pose a danger to the economy (they certainly are already decreasing economic growth) however that is much different than a crash in housing prices. And as bad as the credit markets have been and rising foreclosures, increased housing inventory the anticipated crash in prices has still not been seen nationwide – and I stand by my belief we won’t see it. Though I will admit less confidently than at any time so far – I would hedge my bet on this prediction at this point (if I actually had bet any money on that prediction – I have no desire to sell any of my 401k money invested in real estate, my rental property or my house).

Well the credit crisis triggered by the fallout from lax mortgage lending is really making waves. It seems we are likely to have some real issues to deal with. The reduction of easy money can have serious consequences to an economy especially one so based on spending beyond what it is producing. I’m still not sure what the overall impact will be but the risks certainly seem to be worth watching.

The world savings glut has overwhelmed the excessive borrowing done by the federal government and private sector and kept interest rates lower than seemed reasonable. That may finally change – or may not, isn’t economics great :-/

Don’t go gaga over Google by Geoff Colvin, Fortune senior editor-at-large:

He is welcome to his opinion. Lets look at some previous opinions, August 2004 Wall Street Week transcript:

It is true Google is priced to perform well today (and if they fail to do so the price will go down). And I don’t think it is as good a buy today as it was at $185 (I foolishly didn’t buy at IPO). I did buy more earlier this year, which I am happy to put away for a decade and see where it is then. It is great if you can buy a good stock cheaply but often you are better paying more for a very well managed company than buying cheap companies (by PE, cash flow or EVA or whatever measure you want to use). When I started the 10 stocks for 10 years portfolio in 2005 I put 12% in Google which has increased 134% (along with 12% in Toyota, which is up 67%, and Dell which is down 15%). Google is actually the 3rd best performer as of today (Amazon, up 136%, moved ahead and PetroChina is up 140%). I don’t think Google investors are betting on impossible growth, but time will tell. And the internet makes it easy to see what people predicted previously so we can all see who was right in 5 or 10 years.

I do think at these prices Google is a riskier investment (with lower likely returns) than is was at lower levels (Amazon too). While this may seem obvious, it really is not as obvious as it may seem. If Google’s prospects had improved more than the price increased then at a higher price I might see it as a safer, or possibly better investment… This is what happened when I first bought Google at maybe $190 – after not buying at the IPO. Basically I do not believe Google’s prospects have not increased as much as the stock price in the last 2 years. Certainly I could understand passing up investing in Google today (if so, I would keep a watch out and consider buying if it falls…) but I am perfectly happy to keep my holdings.

Read this article from Fortune (not by Colvin) in 2004, GOOGLE @ $165 Are these guys for real? some quotes:
Read more

I have mentioned I like the way Amazon, and Jeff Bezos, have been managing in several posts. Recently Amazon has added very strong financial results to that portfolio of things they do well. Amazon earnings announcement:

Pretty impressive. It seems Amazon might be able to begin delivering strong current financial performance (they have done so at least twice, and maybe longer depending on how you look at it…) and continue to build and innovate for the future. That is when a company really sets itself apart from the crowd. Previously, from the investing perspective, the argument was largely based on the belief that the steps taken today were building for the future (a fine thing, but risky – without the evidence of success actually making real profit it is often easy to make a good case for why the future will be good). In an investment it is more comforting when current earning provide some evidence the profits predicted in the future have some basis in reality.

Since the beginning of April Amazon’s share price has gone from $40 a share to $70. And based on the after hours trades today it is going to be in the $80s tomorrow (though after hours trades can often be misleading – there is some more confidence based on the large volume of hour trades in Amazon, but still…). I must admit this price does seem like it might be getting a bit ahead of itself but Amazon is making an impressive case for strong future performance.

Related: Amazon Innovation – 10 stocks for 10 years (April 2005) – 12 Stocks for 10 Years Update (June 2007) – Very Good Amazon Earnings – Bezos on Lean Thinking – Is Amazon a Bargain?

Walking to accomplish tasks (getting food, going to work, shopping, going to play basketball) provides a better quality of life than having to drive (getting stuck in traffic jams…) and saves money and protects the environment. Walk Score is a cool web site that lets you calculate a walkability score. I would imagine the better the walkability score the better for the prospects of a real estate investment. You still have to determine if the current price already reflects the long term benefits to quality of life (which are then represented in increased prices) – I think often they will not be providing an investing opportunity. My guess is that real estate would increase above the market if you invested in areas that show walkability score increases during your ownership.

Related: Urban Planning and Real Estate Investing – Real Estate articles – 30 year fixed Mortgage Rates – Real estate blog posts

Mortgage ignorance rampant

Sorry but that is a symptom of massive ignorance. Not knowing an incredible important aspect of your largest financial decision is like not know what days you are suppose to show up for work. There is a minimum amount of knowledge people should have that sign a mortgage. I think at least 34% of mortgage holders need to read this blog. Ok, I probably alienated all of them, so if that is the case then they should read some of the blogs we list in our blogroll.

There is a big problem in that logic – it could maybe make sense if you had good reason to believe rates will be lower in the future than when you took out the loan (but that is a very questionable). I don’t know why someone would think that in the last couple of years – the risks have been much better than rates would go up a few hundred basis points than down that much. Basically I can see someone that is very financially savvy using an adjustable mortgage to qualify and if they know they will move in a fairly short period…

Related: Learning About Mortgages – Mortgage Defaults: Latest Woe for Housing – How Not to Convert Equity – 30 year fixed Mortgage Rates

Some days turn out to be quite unprofitable. One of my larger holdings is Depomed – it was down 58% today (a phase 3 drug trial failed to significantly reduce pain when compared with placebo with Depomed’s formulation, not the kind of news you want for your company). Oh well, you have to take the bad days as an investor (at least I do) if you expect to see the good days (if you invest in individual stocks you have to accept that you will have some bad days). It was the largest holding in my Darvamore marketocracy fund. I imagine the fund, which beat the S&P 500 by 3.5 percentage points annually since it was started, is going to see that result take a huge hit. This day will be noticeable on the chart for a long time.

At least I have the sense to know it was a risky stock – I didn’t have any in my sleepwell fund, for example (the sleepwell fund is beating the S&P 500 by 1.5 percentage points annually since inception – 17.4% to 15.9%, and remember marketocracy reduces returns to account for a 2% annual management fee and trading commissions). Of course that is a bit misleading as most any individual stock can have huge losses on a given day or week. Google is my biggest holding there and while I think a sharp decline is unlikely right now, I would not be amazed to see it drop 30% in some week during the next few years. Given that Google is up 149% even a 50% decline would still make it quite profitable for the the fund. Taken as a whole for a long period of time I think the sleepwell portfolio is pretty solid.

Well, even though I am sure I will have more days like this I hope I can avoid them for awhile and build up some profits first.

I am not exactly sure why but for some reason people seem very ignorant of the wealth distribution by age. The richest group by far are those over 65. There are several reasons for this including self preservation. Once you stop working you better have a large pool of capital or you will most likely have little income (you could have a great pension and no other savings but…). Another is that the “miracle” of compound interest. Those that actually saved enough for retirement often find their investments out-earning their spending thus wealth increasing yearly. This effect over time results in wealth increasing dramatically. Many of those that failed to save enough will have their savings dissolve very quickly thus leaving the inverse of a bell curve (a high number of wealthy and of poor and a lessor number in the middle). Social Security helps those that failed to save enough for retirement to slow the decline (and those that saved enough to become even wealthier even faster). The presence of large numbers of poor elderly I think is one reason so many are surprised that they are the richest age group.

I used to be surprised how few people know this – now I know, for those I talk to anyway, they are always surprised. This has several public policy impacts such as why do we have a huge “social security transfer system” (social security including medicare) to move money from the young to the old when the old are wealthier than the young? People see the 7.65% deducted from their check but the employer has to pay an equal amount to this transfer of wealth between the generations bringing the total to 15.3%.

It doesn’t make much sense to me to have those working at Wal-mart and McDonalds transfer 15.3% of the income from their labor to much wealthier people. Yes, paying something in I think is fair. But the system should be adjusted. One method I would use is to reduce (or eliminate) payments to the wealthy elderly (continuing the existing payments to the poor elderly is affordable so I see continuing those payments as good public policy) and reduce taxes on the working poor. Obviously others disagree so we transfer a large amount of money from those working at Wal-mart to those with hundreds of thousands in investments. I think this is wrong. I wish at least the facts would be known so that the decision is made with awareness of the facts.

Wow, I don’t recall seeing publications actually point out this fact very often. Good for the USA Today.
Read more

Business Week has an article on Microfinance Draws Mega Players on how investment banks are getting into microfinance. I must admit that while I certainly am happy if the market can get involved in making microfinance aid development I think it might be better suited to non-profit, foundations and charities. I am happy to continue to fund organizations like Trickle Up to help people help themselves.

Kiva is another interesting organization that lets you loan directly to an entrepreneur of your choice. If fact, I have just placed $350 in loans to 5 business entrepreneurs (in Kenya, Mexico, Cameroon and Azerbaijan) – and a $50 donation to Kiva. Kiva provides loans through partners (operating in the countries) to the entrepreneurs. Those partners do charge the entrepreneurs interest (to fund the operations of the lending partner). Kiva pays the principle back to you but does not pay interest. And if the entrepreneur defaults then you do not get your interest paid back (in other words you lose the money you loaned). I plan to just recycle repaid loans to other entrepreneurs.

Add a comment with a link to your Kiva page and I will add a page to this site with links to all Curious Cat blog readers with a link to Kiva pages.

Related: Microfinance article from the New Yorker – Kiva: Microfinance Loans (posted on Christmas day 2006) – helping people succeed economically
Read more

The USA supreme court has ruled, 5-4, that manufacturer price fixing is ok (technically setting a minimum price would be ok). An interesting question is who will benefit from this. The right answer might also provide valuable investment ideas. My first thought is this will help those that provide customers added value. Without price to be a factor in the decision that leaves convenience and service. I would think Amazon.com could benefit (though they would likely rather provide discount prices to gain more market share I think they will retain and even grow market share due to convenience). Also retailers like Crutchfield that provide excellent after market support should benefit. Places that people go to only due to cheap prices will probably suffer. And of course the consumer that have to pay the higher prices will suffer. Basically retailers will win due to higher prices then there is just the matter of whether they lose enough business to offset that gain (customers moving from poor service but cheap retailers to good service retailers since there is no price difference).

I also think the idea of using fixed prices as a business strategy will not be as easy as it may seem. Competitors don’t have to institute such a policy and therefore discounters could offer lower prices on their products which might then mean they don’t sell many of yours (and the retailer may just choose not to carry yours). The biggest winners might even turn out to be manufacturers that take advantage of competitors that set minimum prices (by not setting minimum prices themselves) and gaining market share.

Related: High court eases ban on minimum prices – Supreme Court OKs retail price fixing by manufacturers