Home prices fall by record 19.1 percent in 1Q
…
New York still is up 73.4% from January 2000, though down 19.7% from its June 2006 peak. The Detroit index is 29% lower than in January 2000. Detroit home prices are back to their mid-1995 levels.
Phoenix, Las Vegas and San Francisco continued to lead year-over-year decliners, with drops over 30%. Minneapolis led month-to-month decliners, as the rate of decline accelerated there. The rates of decline also accelerated in Boston, Detroit, Las Vegas, Miami, New York, Portland, San Diego and Seattle.
Dallas, Denver, Cleveland, Boston and Charlotte managed to avoid double-digit year-over-year declines. Measuring from each market’s peak, Dallas has suffered the least, down 11.1% from its peak in June 2007; while Phoenix is down 53% from its peak in June of 2006. All of the 20 metro areas are in double digit declines from their peaks, with two — Phoenix and Las Vegas — in excess of 50%.
Related: Home Price Declines Exceeding 10% Seen for 20% of Housing Markets (Sep 2007) - Nearly 10% of Mortgages Delinquent or in Foreclosure - Record Home Price Declines (Sep 2008)
Showing mortgage rates over the last 6 months. Red: 30 year fixed rate. Blue: 15 year fixed rate. Tan: 1 year adjustable rate.
Showing mortgage rates over the last 5 years. Red: 30 year fixed rate. Blue: 15 year fixed rate. Tan: 1 year adjustable rate. From Yahoo Finance, for conventional loans in Virginia.
The 6 month chart shows that mortgage rates have been declining ever so slightly. Rates on a 1 year adjustable mortgage fell from 5.5 to 4% and have stayed near 4% for all of 2009. 30 and 15 year rates (15 year rates staying about 25 basis points cheaper) have declined from 6.5%, 6 months ago to about 5% at the start of the year and have moved around slightly since. This is while the yield 10 year government treasuries have been rising (normally 30 year fixed rate mortgages track moves in the 10 year government bond). The federal reserve has been buying bonds in order to push down the yield (and stimulate mortgage financing and other borrowing).
Mortgage rates certainly could fall further but the current rates are extremely attractive and I just locked in a mortgage refinance for myself. I am getting a 20 year fixed rate mortgage; I didn’t want to extend the mortgage period by getting another 30 year fixed rate mortgage. For me, the risk of increasing rates outweigh the benefits of picking up a bit lower rate given the current economic conditions. But I can certainly understand the decision to hold out a bit longer in the hopes of getting a better rate. If I had to guess I would say rates will be lower during the next 3 months, but I am not confident enough to hold off, and so I decided to move now.
Related: Mortgage Rates Falling on Fed Housing Focus - posts on mortgages - 30 Year Fixed Mortgage Rates and the Fed Funds Rate - Continued Large Spreads Between Corporate and Government Bond Yields - Lowest 30 Year Fixed Mortgage Rates in 37 Years -
Mortgages Falling to 4% Become Bernanke Housing Focus by Brian Louis and Kathleen M. Howley
…
Conventional mortgages averaged 4.61 percent in 1951, 4 percent when backed by the Veterans Administration, and 4.25 percent by the Federal Housing Administration, according to The Postwar Residential Mortgage Market, a 1961 book written by Saul Klaman and published by Princeton University Press. Rates during the 1930s were as high as 7 percent.
…
Mortgages were cheaper through most of the 1940s, ranging from about 4 percent to 5.7 percent, depending on whether the lender was a life insurer, a commercial bank or a savings and loan. In that era, most loans were for 14 years and less.
…
The central bank has purchased more than $300 billion of mortgage-backed securities in 2009 through the week ended April 8, helping to cut home-loan rates to 4.82 percent last week from 5.1 percent at the start of the year, according to Freddie Mac data.
…
The difference between 30-year mortgage rates and 10-year Treasury yields has narrowed to about 2.2 percent from 3.1 percent in December, which was the widest since 1986. The spread remains almost 0.7 percentage point above the average of the past decade, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Rates for 15-year mortgages are about 1.8 percent above 10-year Treasury yields, compared with an average 1.4 percent since 1999.
Excellent article with interesting historical information. I don’t believe mortgage rates will fall to 4% but differences of opinion about the future is one function of markets. Those that predict correctly can make a profit. I am thinking of refinancing a mortgage and I think I am getting close to pulling the trigger. If I was confident they would keep falling I would wait. It just seems to me the huge increase in federal debt and huge outstanding consumer debt along with very low USA saving will not keep interest rates so low. However, as I have mentioned previously, it is interesting that the Fed is directly targeting mortgage rates and possible they can push them lower. The 10 year bond yield has been increasing lately so the slight fall in mortgage rates over the last month are due to the reduced spread (that I can see decreasing - the biggest question for me is how much that spread can decrease).
Related: Fed to Start Buying Treasury Bonds Today - Federal Reserve to Buy $1.2T in Bonds, Mortgage-Backed Securities - Low Mortgage Rates Not Available to Everyone - what do mortgage terms mean?
Home Ownership Shelter, or Burden?
The other area of concentrated distress is subprime mortgages, which increased their share of the American mortgage market from 7% in 2001 to over 20% in 2006. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the delinquency rate was 22% in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared with only 5% for prime loans.
…
“Perhaps the most compelling argument for housing as a means of wealth accumulation”, argues Richard Green of the University of Southern California, “is that it gives households a default mechanism for savings.” Because people have to pay off a mortgage, they increase their home equity and save more than they otherwise would. This is indeed a strong argument: social-science research finds that people save more if they do so automatically rather than having to choose to set something aside every month.
Yet there are other ways to create “default savings”, such as companies offering automatic deductions to retirement plans. In any case, some of the financial snake oil peddled at the height of the housing bubble was bad for saving.
The debate over whether home ownership is a wise investment or not, is contentious (more so in the last year than it was several years ago). I believe in most cases it probably is wise, but there are certainly cases where it is not. If you put yourself in too much debt that is often a big problem. I also think you should save a down payment first. If you are going to move (or have good odds you may want to) then renting is often the better option.
The “default saving” feature is one of the large benefits of home ownership. That benefit is destroyed when you take out loans against the rising value of the house. And in fact this can not just remove the benefit but turn into a negative. If you spend money you should have (increasing your debt) that can not only remove you default saving benefit but actual make your debt situation worse than if you never bought.
Related: Your Home as an Investment - Nearly 10% of Mortgages Delinquent or in Foreclosure - Housing Rents Falling in the USA - Ignorance of Many Mortgage Holders
It’s Now a Renter’s Market by Prashant Gopal
…
Oklahoma City, where people spent just 12% of their income on rent, was the most affordable. Other cheap markets included Indianapolis, Denver, Fort Worth, and Cleveland. The least affordable market was New York, where people spent 57% of their income on rent.
Rental markets are driven largely by 2 factors, vacancy rates and jobs. If jobs in a metropolitan area are increasing rents usually increase. If more new apartments are added to the market than jobs (which then increases vacancy rates) this will push down rates. Other factors influence vacancy rates (such as people moving back in with parent, people sharing apartments…). Those factors often are largely influenced by losing jobs in an area.
D.C. apartment market remains strong
…
Rent increases over the past 12 months for all investment grade apartments kept under the long-term average of 4.2 percent per annum, at 0.5 percent since March 2008.
Related: Housing Rents Falling in the USA - Home Values and Rental Rates - Real estate investing articles - Urban Planning - Longer Commutes Translate to Larger Housing Price Declines
Read more
William Black wrote The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L. I think he a bit off on the “owning one,” being the best way to loot. The looters are not owners, they are executives that loot from owners, taxpayers, customers… And those looters pay politicians a great deal of money to help them. He appeared on Bill Moneys Journal discussing the huge mess we know are in and how little is being done to hold those responsible for the enormous crisis created by them.
…
The FBI publicly warned, in September 2004 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud, that if it was allowed to continue it would produce a crisis at least as large as the Savings and Loan debacle. And that they were going to make sure that they didn’t let that happen. So what goes wrong? After 9/11, the attacks, the Justice Department transfers 500 white-collar specialists in the FBI to national terrorism. Well, we can all understand that. But then, the Bush administration refused to replace the missing 500 agents. So even today, again, as you say, this crisis is 1000 times worse, perhaps, certainly 100 times worse, than the Savings and Loan crisis. There are one-fifth as many FBI agents as worked the Savings and Loan crisis.
…
Well, certainly in the financial sphere, I am. I think, first, the policies are substantively bad. Second, I think they completely lack integrity. Third, they violate the rule of law. This is being done just like Secretary Paulson did it. In violation of the law. We adopted a law after the Savings and Loan crisis, called the Prompt Corrective Action Law. And it requires them to close these institutions. And they’re refusing to obey the law.
…
In the Savings and Loan debacle, we developed excellent ways for dealing with the frauds, and for dealing with the failed institutions. And for 15 years after the Savings and Loan crisis, didn’t matter which party was in power, the U.S. Treasury Secretary would fly over to Tokyo and tell the Japanese, “You ought to do things the way we did in the Savings and Loan crisis, because it worked really well. Instead you’re covering up the bank losses, because you know, you say you need confidence. And so, we have to lie to the people to create confidence. And it doesn’t work. You will cause your recession to continue and continue.”
…
And their ideologies, which swept away regulation. So, in the example, regulation means that cheaters don’t prosper. So, instead of being bad for capitalism, it’s what saves capitalism. “Honest purveyors prosper” is what we want. And you need regulation and law enforcement to be able to do this. The tragedy of this crisis is it didn’t need to happen at all.
Related: Fed Continues Wall Street Welfare - Credit Crisis the Result of Planned Looting of the World Economy - Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals - Poll: 60% say Depression Likely - Canadian Banks Avoid Failures Common Elsewhere - Too Big to Fail - Why Pay Taxes or be Honest
Then came a shocker: Amid one of the most reckless lending sprees in history, regulators focused on the one bank that refused to play along. Beal’s moves confused and worried them, and so they began to probe him with questions. “What are you doing?” he recalls them asking. “You’re shrinking yet you’re raising capital?”
Says Beal about the scrutiny, “I just didn’t fit into any box.” One regulator, the former head of the Texas Savings & Loan Department, Charles Danny Payne, says, “I was skeptical at first, but I’ve gained a lot of confidence over the years,” adding that Beal has an “uncanny ability to sniff out deals.”
Next, the credit rating agencies started pestering him about his dwindling loan portfolio. They never downgraded him but scolded him for seeming not to have a “sustainable” business model. This while their colleagues were signing off on $32 billion of bum collateralized debt obligations issued by Merrill Lynch.
…
He thinks the government is going to be “disappointed” by its various programs to revive lending. He says Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s new plan to guarantee loans to buyers of toxic assets won’t lead to many sales because the problem isn’t liquidity but price. They are not low enough. Half the country’s banks–4,000 in all–would be bust, he says, if they marked their loans to what the loans would fetch in an auction. He says banks are fooling themselves by refusing to mark busted assets down.
“Banks are on a prayer mission that somehow prices will come back and they won’t have to face reality,” Beal says. And that reality, according to Beal, is going to get a lot worse. “Unemployment is going over 10%, commercial real estate hasn’t even begun collapsing and corporate credit defaults are just getting started,” he says. His prediction: depression, without bread lines this time, thanks to the government safety net, but with equal cost to society.
There are some (very few) who succeeded in not acting like lemmings. I wish someone would explain to me why people are worthy of millions in bonuses when they just do what every single other person in their position did that was also getting millions in bonuses. Obviously they were just practicing bankruptcy for profit (which worked out incredibly well for them) and still we seem to think the only solution is to support these moral bankrupt (and now commercially bankrupt) organizations and individuals.
Related: What the Bailout and Stimulus Are and Are Not - Sound Canadian Banking System - More on Failed Executives - Jim Rogers on the Financial Market Mess
Here is a very interesting paper showing real analysis of the data to illustrate that the deteriorating condition of loans should have been caught by those financing such loans years before the mortgage crisis erupted. Understanding the Subprime Mortgage Crisis by Yuliya Demyanyk, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Otto Van Hemert, New York University.
…
In many respects, the subprime market experienced a classic lending boom-bust scenario with rapid market growth, loosening underwriting standards, deteriorating loan performance, and decreasing risk premiums.30 Argentina in 1980, Chile in 1982, Sweden, Norway, and Finland in 1992, Mexico in 1994, Thailand, Indonesia, and Korea in 1997 all experienced the culmination of a boom-bust scenario, albeit in different economic settings.
Were problems in the subprime mortgage market apparent before the actual crisis erupted in 2007? Our answer is yes, at least by the end of 2005. Using the data available only at the end of 2005, we show that the monotonic degradation of the subprime market was already apparent. Loan quality had been worsening for five years in a row at that point. Rapid appreciation in housing prices masked the deterioration in the subprime mortgage market and thus the true riskiness of subprime mortgage loans. When housing prices stopped climbing, the risk in the market became apparent.
Related: Nearly 10% of Mortgages Delinquent or in Foreclosure - How Much Worse Can the Mortgage Crisis Get? - Homes Entering Foreclosure at Record - Articles on Real Estate
Fed to start buying T-bonds today, hoping to move rates
The yield on the 10-year T-note plunged to 2.53% on March 18 from 3% the previous day, the biggest one-day drop in decades. But since then, Treasury bond yields have been creeping higher. The 10-year T-note ended Tuesday at 2.65%. Conventional mortgage rates have flattened or inched up, although they remain historically low, in the range of 4.75% to 5%.
…
On Tuesday the Treasury sold $40 billion of new two-year T-notes at a yield of 0.95%, which was lower than expected, indicating healthy investor demand. The government will auction $34 billion in five-year notes today and $24 billion in seven-year notes on Thursday. Against numbers like those in just one week, the Fed’s commitment to buy $300 billion of Treasuries over six months doesn’t look like much.
…
there’s nothing to stop the Fed from suddenly announcing that its $300-billion commitment will get substantially bigger: The central bank can, in effect, print as much money as it wants to buy bonds — at least, until the day that global investors stop wanting dollars.
The original announcement caused a dramatic move but since then yields have been drifting up, every day, including today. Rates are already very low. And the huge amount of increased federal borrowing is a potential serious problem for lowering rates. And potentially an even more serious problem is foreign investors deciding the yield does not provide a good investment given the risks of inflation (I know that is how I feel). It will be interesting to see what happens with rates.
Related: Who Will Buy All the USA’s Debt? - Lowest 30 Year Fixed Mortgage Rates in 37 Years - mortgage terms
I make a point of showing the discount rate changes by the Fed don’t translate to mortgage rate changes. I do so because many people think the discount rate does directly effect mortgage rates. But the Fed announced today, actions that actually do impact mortgage rates.
Federal Reserve to Buy $1.2T in Bonds, Mortgage-Backed Securities
If you are looking at refinancing your mortgage now (or soon) might be a good time, rates were already very low and will be declining. And if you own long term bonds you just got a nice increase in your value (bond prices move up when interest rates move down).
Related: Lowest 30 Year Fixed Mortgage Rates in 37 Years - Low Mortgage Rates Not Available to Everyone - Why do we Have a Federal Reserve Board?