Call It Wishful Thinking
Today's guest post comes from Mark Thoma, who labors tirelessly in the pacific Northwest. Mark is a Professor of Economics at the University of Oregon, where he also pens the well regarded blog, Economist's View.
In today's guest commentary, Mark hits upon a subject near and dear to our hearts, the perennial Housing bottom callers. (see our earlier discussion of the anti-Cassandras).
Without further ado . . .
~~~~
In the news today, I've been hearing once again that we are near the bottom of the housing cycle, the inevitable bottom call. For example, though the more optimistic analysts are a little more cautious than at times in the past, they still believe the end of the housing downturn may not be to far away:
Although U.S. home prices fell faster than ever in the second quarter, the rate of acceleration slowed in June... Experts hailed the slight deceleration as a harbinger of an eventual recovery in the dismal real estate market. ...[O]bservers seized upon a sliver of good news: ... "I consider it good news that you're seeing price declines decelerate," said Terrin Griffiths, economist and industry analyst with the California and Nevada Credit Union League. "While the markets haven't reached bottom, we're getting closer to there." [source]
or
Two announcements suggested that a bottom could be nearing for the housing market [source]
But enough quotes, you already know how this goes.
Hearing that "the end is near", that the bottom is in sight, I couldn't help but think about Barry and his reaction to bottom calls. Going back almost two years to November, 2006, this is a post of his called, appropriately, Near a Bottom in Housing?:
...I have been ... skeptical about the staying power of the most recent rally... The rally appears to be based on several false premises: A soft landing, a bottom in real estate, a mid-cycle slow down that resumes almost as soon as it starts.
Indeed, if the bulk of the housing recession is behind us, then this would go down in post-war history as one of the shallowest housing corrections on record.
This week, the news out of the Homebuilders belied the "Housing is Bottoming" meme. The simple truth is that 46 year low interest rates (~5.125%) created a generational boom in Housing construction, sales, investment, and speculation. Now that rates have increased..., and home prices have nearly doubled in 7 years, all the while inventory built to record levels -- the blush is off the rose.
And, moving forward another month, to December, 2006:
Yeah! Housing Will Recover in Q1!: Or so says the NAR:
"The worst of the U.S. housing slump is over, according to the National Association of Realtors. ...
David Lereah, NAR's chief economist "Most of the correction in home prices is behind us, but general gains in value next year will be modest by historical standards." Lereah did not offer any evidence for his statement.
Call it wishful thinking... The NAR has not shown itself to be a particularly astute forecaster... Calling the bottom in Real Estate has been a losing gambit this year. In addition to the NAR's chief economist, several other cheerleaders have erroneously called for the same, including former Fed Chief Alan Greenspan. They have so far been proven wrong. ...
Real housing bottoms require more than wishful thinking; They require solid evidence, and more than mere price reductions. A significant decrease in inventory, plus motivated sellers, would go a long way to seeing a bottom form. So far, we have yet to see any evidence of that.
As you read through Barry's posts, you can see his respect for NAR economists grow (e .g., "NAR economist Lawrence Yun? Puh-leeze! He's been optimistic housing would stabilize for years now."). In fact, I think the level of respect may be entering Greenspan territory, and we know how much respect Barry has for his housing calls (among other things). In case you missed his post on Greenspan a couple of weeks ago:
Recall Greenspan's first Real Estate bottom calling attempt came in late 2006... He repeated the calls many times since then. Most recently, in April 2008, when he said "the drop in U.S. home prices will probably end well before' early next year as the number of houses on the market diminishes, aiding an economic rebound."
Wow, that's three strike in just one swing: Inventory remains high, home prices continue to fall, and we are still waiting for the economic rebound
Many of today's current woes are traceable right back to Greenie: Keeping interest rates too low too long is just the start; his malfeasance in refusing to regulate the lending industry. -- Wessel politely called it "regulating too lightly" but that's horseshit -- Greenspan made the ideological decision to allow the free markets to just sort it all out. That's what's happening now, and no one likes it very much (except a few hard core free market types, who find it all delightfully anarchic)
So far, the bottom calls have been far off. But there will a bottom, and one of these days we'll get there. But when, and how will we know? What signs should we look for? Above, Barry says two things to watch for are:
A significant decrease in inventory, plus motivated sellers
Sellers may be motivated, but there hasn't been a significant decline in inventories:
[via Calculated Risk (larger)]
And the main point of the news today was that another thing we need for recovery to take place, price stabilization, may not be too far away. Is that correct?
Martin Feldstein is pushing his housing rescue plan in the Financial Times, the same one he's been pushing over the last few months (e.g. WSJ and Washington Post). The plan involves stabilizing housing prices to reduce foreclosures (through "mortgage replacement loans" from the government). He s ays:
The current decline of house prices is the natural result of the bubble that by 2006 had raised house prices to 60 per cent above their long-term trend. The sharp decline since then means that today's prices are about 15 per cent above the trend level. But while a further 15 per cent decline may be inevitable, there is nothing to stop prices declining even further.
This doesn't sound much like a bottom call:
The large and growing number of homeowners with negative equity will increase the rate of defaults and foreclosures and therefore drive the downward spiral of prices. Defaults are likely to accelerate as the ratio of the debt to the home value rises. ... Each such default puts downward pressure on existing prices, increasing the like-lihood of further defaults. It is this spiral that threatens the American economy and the global financial system.
The policies adopted until now will not stop the downward price spiral.
Are we near the bottom? Is the end near? I wish I could answer yes, but I think we have a ways to go yet. Paul Krugman says:
When will it all end? The answer is, probably not until 2010 or later.
I'm hoping it won't be that long, but so far the crisis has unfolded in an almost eerily slow fashion - sort of like watching a train wreck in slow motion and being unable to do anything about it - and there's no reason to think that will change.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 | 09:30 AM | Permalink
| Comments (70)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e5546ffc348833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Call It Wishful Thinking:
Comments
I'm a mechanical engineer by trade so I "see" things in the physical sense. Let me give you a physical analogy to the bottom callers and the decreasing acceleration that I've grown so sick and tired of hearing about. If I jump out of a plane with no parachute, I accelerate (via gravity) until I reach a point that the air friction around me equals the force of gravity pulling me toward the earth. This point is called terminal velocity. The highest point of acceleration I experience is the instant I jump out the plane and it "decreases" to zero acceleration at terminal velocity. At terminal velocity I am no longer going faster or slower than I was a second before so my acceleration is zero. BTW – terminal velocity for a human is about 125 mph (store this trivia tidbit for use in just a second.) So the housing rate of acceleration slowed, SO WHAT!!!! At terminal velocity my acceleration has slowed to zero, BUT I'm still screaming toward the earth at 125 mph! The instant right before I face plant into Firma Terra, I'm still experiencing no acceleration. My point is the acceleration, while important, has NOTHING to do with calling a bottom in housing! The only thing that matters is the direction. If I'm still heading down then there is no bottom reached regardless of whether I'm headed down faster or slower (acceleration) than last period.
Posted by: Rob P. | Aug 27, 2008 9:50:58 AM
I don't know about slow, it's like a double speed Japan. Which still doesn't bode well for the near term. And as Keynes says, in the long run we're all dead.
Posted by: crack | Aug 27, 2008 9:52:22 AM
Well, all but the top couple of percent of American households saw a decline in real earnings during the housing boom, and prices are still how much higher than 2001 (particularly if you factor in the increaingly high cost of borrowing for the mortgage)?
Many don't want to admit it, but housing prices, given the runup in inventory, rising price inflation and unemployment, and the probable slowdown in new household creation, should be LOWER than they were in 2001. Well, there's still time.
Posted by: bk | Aug 27, 2008 9:53:32 AM
Barry,
Aren't we expecting a large number of resets in 1Q 2011? (I assume these are mostly post-2005 "vintage") Shouldn't we then expect to see a bottom after this?
Posted by: morganstanislav | Aug 27, 2008 9:54:43 AM
Well people, this should end all this "are we, or we not?" banter.
A certain bald headed person called the bottom in the housing market yesterday. Period. End of discussion.
Any other questions?
Posted by: jumbostar | Aug 27, 2008 10:15:56 AM
Ha Ha! That post just made me realize I hadn't heard the term "soft landing" in a long, long time. I think it may have been replaced with "V-shaped downturn" but I'm not sure.
Posted by: lunatic_fringe | Aug 27, 2008 10:19:18 AM
I like the first comment. How fast can prices drop? That's a good question.
Also noone seems to point out that once we hit bottom how long will it stay there?
Posted by: GB | Aug 27, 2008 10:21:00 AM
I guess reaching terra firma at terminal velocity would be an 'I' shaped recession.
I agree with bk: with inventory greater, income lower, and unemployment greater, house prices should be at or lower than 2001 prices. Anyone who tries rocket science to explain otherwise is selling something.
Posted by: pmorrisonfl | Aug 27, 2008 10:24:45 AM
Except for a few minutes here and there a long time ago, I've never watched Mad Money. I can deal with Cramer's writing, but the sight and sound of him is too much to take. But yesterday it came on while I was up a ladder painting. And I heard Cramer predict that housing would bottom precisely "one year from now". Another self-serving stunt for the most unaccountable scumbag in the punditry business.
Posted by: Eric | Aug 27, 2008 10:36:21 AM
Rob P:
I like the terminal velocity and face plant analogy. Great stuff.
Usually I think of the economy as being like a massive ocean liner. You can stand on the bridge and know intuitively that the ship is beginning to slow down (that would be Barry in 2006), but you also know that the thing has a lot of momentum and is going to keep on going until it hits that little tiny iceberg out there... (credit crunch, subprime, call it what you will).
After the ship finally stops of course it would then take a lot of effort to get the ship moving again (Japan), and then there are those troublesome leaks down below the waterline (insolvency, bankruptcy, unemployment). So not everyone is going to make it into the lifeboats (sorry, Lehman, Wachovia, WaMu), we have to save the women and children (Fannie and Freddie) first.
Posted by: leftback | Aug 27, 2008 10:42:27 AM
Acceleration matters here because we are talking jobs for builders, product suppliers, the gamit.
This "Post" has me wondering what's this economy "Engine" called? Legal theft? What is the "System" really up to?
Define system = mechanism to step through a life with prosperity for me. No, familiy. No, my job. No, my local community. No, the USA. No, the globe.
Posted by: Greg0658 | Aug 27, 2008 10:44:51 AM
Housing bottom callers at this point are wind-up dolls.
It's amazing to me that these people are paid so much money for the crap they say.
Posted by: Steve Dallas | Aug 27, 2008 10:54:12 AM
From MarketWatch's Greg Robb yesterday:
"Economists who are calling the housing bottom are like a baseball team that's close to clinching a playoff berth but keeps losing, and its clubhouse staff has to keep loading and unloading Champagne across the country.
Every month, these economists say the bottom is close, but really some poor souls are putting the Champagne back on the truck for the next month."
Posted by: Boom2Bust.com | Aug 27, 2008 10:59:08 AM
"sort of like watching a train wreck in slow motion and being unable to do anything about it"
Exactly.
Except for short this market, because its still got a serious case of delusion.
Sign of the times: The Treasury has to open its own "Discount Window" for the FDIC... and we DONT hear an uproar...?
Posted by: Spliff McGriff | Aug 27, 2008 11:08:21 AM
Greenspan made the ideological decision to allow the free markets to just sort it all out
Minor quibble: those markets consisted of individuals, some of which were inordinately greedy and lacking in ethics.
So it ain't "the market," per se. It's the bad guys.
Posted by: dad29 | Aug 27, 2008 11:19:40 AM
Housing bottom callers at this point are wind-up dolls.
It's amazing to me that these people are paid so much money for the crap they say.
Posted by: Steve Dallas | Aug 27, 2008 10:54:12 AM
Steve,
they get paid so much, precisely, for their willingness to say such things. Much like the CEOs, paid for what they're willing to do. Shills and Hitmen are the highest cost inputs in any racket..
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer | Aug 27, 2008 11:19:56 AM
Um, terminal velocity is a terrible analogy. In physics, when you hit terminal velocity, there is no velocity to be gained no matter how much distance you travel because gravity is constant.
In economics the "gravity" constantly changes due to supply and demand (due, at a minimum, to population growth and money supply growth) so there is always distance to be gained.
Posted by: Patrick | Aug 27, 2008 11:21:22 AM
Sorry, I mean there is always velocity to be gained.
Stupid teleconferences are messing me up! ;p
Posted by: Patrick | Aug 27, 2008 11:23:17 AM
Just saw Fiorina on Bloomberg and she said that McCain has a home plan to keep people in their homes with a 30 year mortgage. Crisis over, we've hit bottom.
Posted by: larster | Aug 27, 2008 11:25:32 AM
1/ The parachute analogy fails since (believe it or not) all house prices are not going to 0 (the equivalent of hitting the ground). Indeed in a few places house prices are rising-an impossibility for a parachutist.
2/ Homebuilder stocks will start moving up before nationwide house prices hit their low because of an increase in the number of places where house proces rise.
Posted by: Dave | Aug 27, 2008 11:39:47 AM
@Larster: You mean the same self-serving, self-promoting, snake-oil ME-FIRST-LAST-ALWAYS (unless the shite hits the fan and then it's not MY fault) Carly Fiorina? Why does this woman even get air time? She stunk the joint out at HP and is still trying to take credit for their recent turnaround. What a joke. She must get air time simply for having a shred of charisma because it certainly isn't because of her competence. I'm sure she'll be governer of Cali someday. Her new nickname should be the "The Music Woman".
Posted by: Jeff M. | Aug 27, 2008 11:41:15 AM
"In economics the "gravity" constantly changes due to supply and demand (due, at a minimum, to population growth and money supply growth) so there is always distance to be gained."
Always...as in "it's always been like that"?
It's "always" like it's been before, until it isn't.
Case in point: Money supply growth. The money supply is right now contracting. "M3 "broad money" aggregates fell by almost $50bn (£26.8bn) in July, the biggest one-month fall since modern records began in 1959", and the trend since Feb 2008 is strongly negative, to say the least.
As for the population growth, (I'm assuming US growth) it may benefit business interests (more development) but it is unsustainable from a resource management standpoint.
Posted by: Francois | Aug 27, 2008 12:09:25 PM
Where's the fear in saying something completely wrong when you know otherwise. These guys are smart enough to know the truth. We've got to change that the fear of losing a couple a bucks is less than the fear of getting something else. Anyone up for corporal punishment?
Posted by: BustaMove | Aug 27, 2008 12:17:50 PM
It's "without further ado"
Posted by: John | Aug 27, 2008 12:18:23 PM
>there is no velocity to be gained no matter how much distance you travel because gravity is constant.
Errr... no. Back to the teleconference with you!
Posted by: a different chris | Aug 27, 2008 12:40:40 PM
