Wikinvest Wire

What if House Prices Don't Go Down?

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Marc Faber, author of the excellent book Tomorrow's Gold and the Gloom, Boom, and Doom newsletter prompts an interesting question or two after an interview this week in which he postulated that if the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up by three times in the next ten years, then gold would go up by a minimum of ten times.

What questions were prompted?

If the Dow can rise significantly in the next ten years, why not housing too?

And, if housing continues to rise, what would be the fate of those who have eagerly cashed in their real estate gains with the expectation that prices will fall and they will be able to buy back in at lower levels?

What if house prices don't go down?

These are not the sort of questions that you normally read in this space, as for some time now, expectations have been quite high for a healthy correction, where normalcy is returned to a housing market that has acted eerily like internet stocks a few years back.

But, the highly anticipated correction has been slow in coming - agonizingly slow.

The whole idea is worthy of consideration as many sit and wait for what appeared so obvious, so many months ago, and which is now unfolding at a pace that can only be described as glacial. And, with an outcome that is still uncertain.

Dr. Faber offers his thoughts on gold and the dollar:

The outlook for the precious metal depends on how much money Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke "will print,'' Faber said in an interview yesterday in Tokyo.

"As you know he has pronounced speeches about asset deflation,'' said Faber, referring to Bernanke. "He's concerned about real estate and stocks going down, so in the long run for sure he'll print money.''
So, printing more money, according to Dr. Faber will be the cure-all. Stocks, housing, you name it - one simple solution for all that ails the post-Greenspan economy.

That's not to say that Mr. Bernanke will have much control over where all that money goes, but some of it surely will find its way into stocks and housing. With a little help from government and big banks, perhaps these favored asset classes will be kept aloft for longer than most could imagine.

But, what about the money that doesn't go into these favored assets?
Pension and mutual funds are pumping record amounts of cash into commodities as China's booming economy stokes demand for oil and other raw materials, leading to a three-year boom in prices. The amount of money invested in index-linked commodity funds rose last year by as much as $30 billion to $80 billion, according to Barclays Capital. The amount may rise by 38 percent this year to $110 billion, the bank said.

Gold for immediate delivery reached a record $850 in 1980. The metal rose 0.4 percent today to $623.09 an ounce at 11:45 a.m. Tokyo time.

Energy and uranium prices will continue to rise on growing Asian demand, said Faber.

"Asian oil demand will double,'' he said. "We don't know whether that will be in eight or 15 years but for sure it will double and I don't think supplies will be able to match that.''
So, with the electronic printing press ready and willing, and with a still irrationally exuberant populace that doesn't seem to tire of working their way from one bubble to the next, why not just keep printing money as a cure for every economic malady that arises.

Can't afford to fill up your tank?

Enter the 2007 Working Family Gasoline Subsidy Bill.

Can't make your mortgage payment due to your ARM resetting?

How about the 2008 Mortgage Payment Relief Act.

Stock market faltering?

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York will be there to prop it up.

The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, along with some creative legislation, will have the cure.

Falling Home Prices

House prices are already beginning to fall - yesterday's new home sales report (PDF) from the Census Bureau showed a two percent drop in median price year-over-year and whopping eight percent decline from the peak last summer.

So, as far as the homebuilders go, real estate is now past its peak.

This chart from the very data-friendly Lyons Real Estate in the Sacramento area shows about a five percent decline in average price per square foot since last summer and there are many anecdotal accounts nationwide about faltering housing markets where sellers are faced with the harsh choice of downward price adjustments or letting their property sit on the market where inventory is rising rapidly.
So, it seems that in many areas, the corner has already turned and now it's just a question of where prices head, how fast, and what the response is from the powers that be.

If, as Dr. Faber suggests, Ben Bernanke and crew are ready and willing to do whatever it takes to keep the most recent asset bubble inflated by printing money at virtually no cost, then what?

If in five years, a very ordinary California home still costs a rather extraordinary half million dollars or so, where will that leave the shrewd observers of economic trends who cashed in their real estate gains and parked their bounty in Treasury bills yielding five percent while waiting for a better buying opportunity?

They'll be left disappointed - that's where they'll be.

But, in the event that this scenario does unfold, time may still be on the side of those who exited the real estate market with huge gains in recent years. Extrapolating from Dr. Faber's example above where the Dow goes to 36,000 in ten years and gold goes to $6000, let's figure what that might translate to for housing in five years, assuming an ultra-aggressive monetary policy response in the wake of a declining housing market.

For example, if that $700,000 home today defies all logic and proceeds toward $1 million in the early part of the next decade, how would that stack up against, say, $350,000 in gains from the sale of property in 2005 for someone who is now renting?

It all depends.

If the $350,000 were returning five percent a year, then in five years, the earnings would be roughly $100,000 before taxes, leaving the renter more than $200,000 behind where they would have otherwise been.

Not very good.

If the $350,000 were invested in the Dow, which proceeded to double in five years, the earnings would be roughly $350,000 before taxes, leaving the renter about where they would have been had they just stayed put last year.

Better, but still not worth the trouble.

If the $350,000 were invested in gold, which, over the next five years moved to $3,000 an ounce, then the million dollar home in 2011 could be purchased outright, leaving a cool three-quarters of a million dollars left over to have some fun with.

Hmmm...

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Go for it!

Of course all bubbles pop so all you have to do is get your timing right on exit.

Worker 17 said...

Everything I've seen so far from Bernanke indicates that he'd favor draconian measures on assets if it means keeping inflation low. He seems to have more in common with Volker than with Greenspan. Granted, I've got a very limited experience with his writings, but he seems to be focused on the idea that all good things economic flow from low inflation.

Instead of asking what happens if the housing market doesn't crash, why not ask what happens if Bernanke sticks to his guns on inflation?

Anonymous said...

Ignorant: I had agreed with your views on Bernanke, till today. I'm very concerned about the statement he made.

"Of course, a decision to take no action at a particular meeting does not preclude action at subsequent meetings," Bernanke said.

No kidding! Thats the way the Fed is supposed to operate. Independent decisions at each meeting. Was it / is it operating some other way?

Bernanke's gun just got a little smaller.

Anonymous said...

Ignorant:

It's impossible to know what you mean by "sticks to his guns on inflation", but if that means continuing to raise rates into the 6-7 percent range then the housing market will crater. Foreclosures are already rising very briskly and if there are widespread yearly decreases in prices this summer, then things will snowball quickly.

Anonymous said...

One thing that bothers me about this piece is the idea of abstracting investment from society. Yes I suppose an elite can figure out the nature of markets and profit from catastrophe (buy gold!), but the increased "wealth" will be of questionable value as the rest declines.

Americans are the most indulged people ever and those with libertarian tendencies are the most so, they assume all the infrastructure and comfortable social conventions are automatic.

Worker 17 said...

"I had agreed with your views on Bernanke, till today. I'm very concerned about the statement he made."

I admit that when I later saw his testimony it gave me pause. The free money stimulus was addictive, and there's going to be a time when Ben is going to have to make a tough decision that people will not like. That's my view of it, anyway. Don't know if I'm right.

Anonymous said...

I agree with mtnrunner2. It seems to me that the "weak link" in the "inflate our way out of these problems" argument is how to get enough depreciated dollars into the hands of the citizenry. Unless the government figures out a way to inflate wages or starts doling out $$ through massive government grants or tax rebates, the average citizen, whos spending makes up about 80% of our economy, isn't going to be able to keep the housing market afloat.

agezna said...

I think the venture capitalists have much of the easy money if Dilbert is any indication: http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20060427.html

Anonymous said...

The fact that Bernanke wants to make the Fed actions less predictable (maybe suspend rate increases, but then continue them, or maybe not) is a good thing. One of the issues with Fed intervention of any kind is the impression it leaves, that all things economic are predictable and the Fed is in control, and therefore perceived risks are lower than they should be. The greatest risk to the economy is the widespread perception that there isn't any risk.

Anonymous said...

Apologies in advance. I need to rant. I can't believe what I am reading here. If you think what Ben or Alan or whoever thinks has anything at all to do with what will happen, you have been duped and you deserve to suffer like all the stinking IDIOTS who think the dollar will get stronger. Open your puny little minds and comprehend at how much spending has been planned and how much debt has been accumulated. The Fed will print loads. BUT, of course it can't just come out and say that to your face. The fact that the Dow or housing could still go up does not make it a good investment. That just means that dollar cash or bonds are worse investments.

Tim said...

A quick check on some math: $10,000 to each of 5 million households to help them make their mortgage payments for a year is $50 billion. That's not a lot of money (these days) and would do wonders for the real estate market. There are less than a half million homes in some stage of foreclosure all around the country at the moment.

Anonymous said...

dlp,

You don't cure an addict by giving them more dope.

Tim said...

Looks like the Working Family Gasoline Subsidy Bill is making its way through Congress:

Senators Propose $100 Gas Rebate Checks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060427/ap_on_go_co/oil_taxes_24;_ylt=AhUDvRmUXLlXM_iDZfUFS2eAsnsA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I'm not saying right, I'm just saying it's not hard to do.

Anonymous said...

Oh.

BTW, I think this is how BOC policy on keeping US borrowers afloat in debt is like a slow poison. And our own government is the biggest borrower.

agezna said...

America is currently very screwed up. A massive mailing out of checks for only $100? Are you kidding me? What is the cost to mail a check? People are so stupid.

Anonymous said...

> If you think what Ben or Alan or whoever thinks has anything at all to do with what will happen, you have been duped and you deserve to suffer like all the stinking IDIOTS who think the dollar will get stronger.

I agree, in the sense that there is nothing anyone can do to ultimately stop the consequences of past inflationary policies. Of course, Ben or Alan or others their ilk can continue to make the same mistakes, which will indeed effect how the future plays out.

As for whats going on now, I think its fairly shrewd of Bernanke, though it doesn't make too much difference. The Fed has to appear to be proceeding cautiously, and a rate pause is definitely called for if one's mantra is that inflation is an external phenomenon and it may or may not be surfacing. There is a lag between monetary policy and effect, so it is only prudent to pause and give the effects a chance to become apparent.

What is going to be found is that inflation will continue and probably increase over the rest of this year, and the Fed will declare that it must continue raising rates to battle the beast. It is all, of course, a farce, because we know the inflation will ultimately arrive everywhere (and has already arrived in service and asset prices) because the Fed already created the money that will in turn create the consumer price inflation.

I definitely think Bernanke is more like Volker than Greenspan. I think he will make the tough choice of raising interest rates very high, ostensibly to battle inflation, but in reality to save the dollar. I think he will somehow try to not contract monetary supply globally; there seem to be hints that the screws will be put on the banking system but that the Fed will reserve the right to flood the streets with cash (while hiding it--witness the subverting of M3).

But who knows. Bernanke is more or less mad to have been advocating the "savings glut" hypothesis--unless that is a political charade.

Anonymous said...

correction for my comment above.

"Of course, a decision to take no action at a particular meeting does not preclude action at subsequent meetings," Bernanke said.

if Bernanke actually continues to raise rates after making a comment like this, I will rank him above Volker.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Bernanke will try to inflate his way out of this pickle, if only because that much inflation would be seen as a default to investors. If you want to see what truly hard times are, wait for all the foreign money in the US decide that their dough is better invested elsewhere. Credit would drop faster than inflation could keep up, unless Bernanke decides on hyperinflation and that would have catastrophic consequences for everyone worldwide.

Besides, no one wants to piss off the hordes of boomers who actually have money in pensions and 401Ks by inflating away their savings. Sure there are a lot of people in new debt, but there are still plenty of folks with equity and investments.

Anonymous said...

(1) Those who believe that the banking interests (i.e. the Fed) are aligned with savers, please review the historical record and think again.
(2) It takes time for inflation to work itself through the economy. The injustice is that those who receive the newly-printed money first get to spend it before price levels adjust. Those who save and are not invested in the proper hedges simply have their pockets picked. The important consideration here is even if the Fed were to stop further money printing now, the full effects of past money printing have yet to be realized. Higher prices are coming no matter what interest rate is set. (Aside: Fed funds ~5%, real inflation ~8%-9% and climbing = policy not neutral by a mile).
(3) Saving the dollar means voluntarily triggering a deep depression in order to forego a worse fate following a hyperinflation.
(4) There isn't the political will to enact (3), imo. If there were, Congress, the Senate and the President would be actively drafting bills to raise taxes, cut spending and reduce social benefits.
(5) There is no policy that will work to save everyone but there is still plenty of time to save yourself. And, in doing so, you could actually benefit significantly.

Anonymous said...

Chubbyray: Although our inflation is clearly understated, the inflation you talk about mainly applies to our middle class.

The same middle class that uses a majority of their income on housing, gas, healthcare, and education. The very same people that have put our average savings rate into the negative.

To put it simply, the reason why the middle class is borrowing is because the ROI on investing in bonds appears to be negative from their standpoint. When it appears negative, they borrow.

The mega-investors are hardly phased. In their eyes, inflation is very tame. Energy, education, housing, healthcare costs, are just opportunities to make money, not additional costs of living.

Mega-investors mainly care about the cost of labor. Thats the real inflation from their standpoint. So far, so good.

When labor goes up, we will see thunder strike. Its already happened twice in the last hundred years.

Anonymous said...

Ben Gay might be forced to raise rates even if the US goes into recession.
Higher rates may be the only way to attract foreigners to purchase
US Treasury Debt. That's what happened in Argentina.
I think the US should adopt the Euro as it's currency.

Anonymous said...

dan 549pm,

If what you mean to say is that those who have excess income to invest and know where to put it can hedge their currency/inflation risk and even profit, while those who live paycheck to paycheck cannot, I agree entirely. The middle class will shrink and rich get richer. If the situation gets bad enough, guess what happens next. If the public is getting eaten alive by inflation while Lee Raymond, for example, is receiving obscene $400M retirement packages, seems like a 'let them eat cake' message to me.

On the other hand, I don't believe that people choose to borrow because they find the returns on there deposits to be too low. People who borrow to spend and live beyond their means are simply irresponsible, as are those who lend to them. This is the sort of enterprise (eg. Fannie Mae, GM Finance, etc.) that the Fed makes possible.

Anonymous said...

If the public is getting eaten alive by inflation while Lee Raymond, for example, is receiving obscene $400M retirement packages,

Let them eat cake. Raymond deserves every penny of that pension.

Anonymous said...

>>How could any lender come up with a product to let the median wage earner, at $60K/year, buy a $800K house?

50 year mortgages! With a healthy dose of I/O perhaps?

http://www.burbed.com/2006/03/27/50-year-mortgages-are-hot-hot-hot/

-Burbed.com Editor

IMAGE

  © Blogger template Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP