CNN's Shawn Tully says that a good measure of housing derives from the ratio between what people pay in rent and what owners spend on the same property. Historically, people do not spend too much more to own a property over paying in rent. During a housing boom, renting becomes cheaper. The Deutsche Bank REIT research team first came up with a "normal" ratio of rents to ownership costs, or ATMP, after-tax mortgage payment for 53 US cities. In 1999, renters paid about 87% the cost of ownership on properties, indicating a small premium for ownership. Mid-2006 brought sub-60% levels.
In Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami, homeowners were paying twice as much as renters, and in San Francisco and Orange Country, owners' monthly payments were triple those of their neighbors with leases instead of mortgages.
Overall, CNN predicts a 5% decline in housing prices nationwide. The drop could come in steeper if rents continue to decline.
In another 14 cities, a list encompassing Boston, San Jose, and Chicago, the cost of owning exceeds that of renting by 6% or less. In the remaining 24 markets, housing is still moderately to extremely overpriced. The biggest problem areas are Baltimore, Long Island, and Seattle, where the ratio is still between 24% and 32% above the 1999 benchmark.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Deficit facts
Douglas Elmendorf of the Congressional Budget Office,
…. accumulating deficits will push federal debt held by the public to significantly higher levels. At the end of 2009, debt held by the public was $7.5 trillion, or 53 percent of GDP; by the end of 2020, debt is projected to climb to $15 trillion, or 67 percent of GDP.
USA: 53%
UK: ~100%
Japan: approaching 180%
…. accumulating deficits will push federal debt held by the public to significantly higher levels. At the end of 2009, debt held by the public was $7.5 trillion, or 53 percent of GDP; by the end of 2020, debt is projected to climb to $15 trillion, or 67 percent of GDP.
USA: 53%
UK: ~100%
Japan: approaching 180%
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Confidence in America
Still, by next year things could be worse: Japan’s public debt is expected to hit $9.4 trillion, or 181 percent of its gross domestic product. By that measure, Washington still looks good, if only by comparison.
One thing about public debt, it requires public confidence. Japan's AA rating on public debt was downgraded to "negative" from "stable" by Standard & Poor's last week. The 10-year JGB climbed to 1.380% on Thursday, its highest level since Nov. 12. This concerns the government because if the confidence isn't there, speculation may turn into reality. Japan currently has the highest debt of any industrialized nation and, unlike the confidence that keeps US interest rates fairly grounded, would raise the cost of servicing the debt to the Japanese government. In these situations the government needs to step in. Quantitative easing perhaps but this tactic has provided very little support in combating deflation.
This picture provides a warning to the US. Without growth in two key areas, consumer confidence and exports, the deflation will remain a burden to Japan's economy. Exports provide a keystone for fabricating the turnaround and much of this will ultimately depend on the US, the biggest consumers in the world. If this were a level playing ground, the US would be in the same boat. The US faced mild deflation the past year and a half and yet everyone I've talked to has been forecasting inflation in the near future. Why? Because the economy is in a recession and the wave of job growth, innovation, technological leadership, and consumer confidence will allow for interest rates to rise. This may be seen as speculative but it is the only the reason the dollar hasn't officially collapsed yet. Why would anyone be holding onto US dollars if they knew a recovery was unlikely? Perhaps the psychological acceptance of the US dollar still holds stronger than the speculative dismay of the US economy.
One thing about public debt, it requires public confidence. Japan's AA rating on public debt was downgraded to "negative" from "stable" by Standard & Poor's last week. The 10-year JGB climbed to 1.380% on Thursday, its highest level since Nov. 12. This concerns the government because if the confidence isn't there, speculation may turn into reality. Japan currently has the highest debt of any industrialized nation and, unlike the confidence that keeps US interest rates fairly grounded, would raise the cost of servicing the debt to the Japanese government. In these situations the government needs to step in. Quantitative easing perhaps but this tactic has provided very little support in combating deflation.
This picture provides a warning to the US. Without growth in two key areas, consumer confidence and exports, the deflation will remain a burden to Japan's economy. Exports provide a keystone for fabricating the turnaround and much of this will ultimately depend on the US, the biggest consumers in the world. If this were a level playing ground, the US would be in the same boat. The US faced mild deflation the past year and a half and yet everyone I've talked to has been forecasting inflation in the near future. Why? Because the economy is in a recession and the wave of job growth, innovation, technological leadership, and consumer confidence will allow for interest rates to rise. This may be seen as speculative but it is the only the reason the dollar hasn't officially collapsed yet. Why would anyone be holding onto US dollars if they knew a recovery was unlikely? Perhaps the psychological acceptance of the US dollar still holds stronger than the speculative dismay of the US economy.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
For the record
The central bank last year purchased $300 billion in U.S. government debt and is on track to buy $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities plus $175 billion in debt from government-backed mortgage companies by the end of March.
American International Group (AIG) has received $43.2 billion from the Treasury's TARP program. The Obama administration's budget proposal, released Monday, announced that AIG will receive an additional $69.8 billion from TARP through 2010.
$27 billion was allocated to foreclosure prevention and an additional $48.8 billion may be on its way.
One of Obama's proposals is to cut companies' abilities to place their earning in overseas bank accounts, which enjoy tax-free havens.
Large business taxes would raise $468 billion over the next ten years, according to the fiscal 2011 budget plan. One pattern is that taxes concentrate around demand. Rental property, on a whole, has experienced increased demand naturally as unemployment has forced many families to migrate out of their newly foreclosed homes and into more affordable, temporary solutions.
Others who would face tax increases if the budget plan is passed by Congress:
US oil, gas, and coal producers
Producers of cellulosic ethanol made from paper byproducts
Employers who pay unemployment taxes
Owners of rental property
Companies that rely on independent contractors
Overview of Business Tax Highlights
The Bush tax cuts for lower and middle income American expire this year. It is still unclear whether the Obama administration will extend or terminate them.
American International Group (AIG) has received $43.2 billion from the Treasury's TARP program. The Obama administration's budget proposal, released Monday, announced that AIG will receive an additional $69.8 billion from TARP through 2010.
$27 billion was allocated to foreclosure prevention and an additional $48.8 billion may be on its way.
One of Obama's proposals is to cut companies' abilities to place their earning in overseas bank accounts, which enjoy tax-free havens.
Large business taxes would raise $468 billion over the next ten years, according to the fiscal 2011 budget plan. One pattern is that taxes concentrate around demand. Rental property, on a whole, has experienced increased demand naturally as unemployment has forced many families to migrate out of their newly foreclosed homes and into more affordable, temporary solutions.
Others who would face tax increases if the budget plan is passed by Congress:
US oil, gas, and coal producers
Producers of cellulosic ethanol made from paper byproducts
Employers who pay unemployment taxes
Owners of rental property
Companies that rely on independent contractors
Overview of Business Tax Highlights
The Bush tax cuts for lower and middle income American expire this year. It is still unclear whether the Obama administration will extend or terminate them.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Systematic Risk
“We simply cannot accept a system in which hedge funds and private equity firms insider banks can place huge risky bets that are subsidized by taxpayers,’’ Obama said at the news conference this week announcing his proposal.
Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, the private-equity firm of the nation's largest commercial bank, owns 25% of the health care company, HCA.
Merrill made the investment when HCA was taken private in a $33 billion leveraged buy out in 2006. Since then, HCA has reduced its debt load, boosted revenue and, as Deal Journal wrote about earlier, is paying a fat $1.75 billion cash fourth quarter dividend to its investors.
White House officials have said the Volcker rule would likely allow commercial banks to make investments on behalf of clients, but not with the bank’s own money. Whether a Volcker rule would affect BofA’s HCA investment remains unclear.
Obama said in his State of the Union address that he would veto any reform legislation that fails to reduce systematic risk.
Systematic risk is essentially the correlation of losses of market participants. There are two main ways to measure systemic risk: Too big To fail (TBTF) and Too interconnected to fail (TICTF).
TBTF compares an institution's size relative to
the national and international marketplace, market share concentration, and competitive barriers to entry or how easily a product can be substituted.
The national insurance marketplace, for example, simply requires capital input to become a player and therefore one homeowner's insurance policy can easily be replaced by another.
a state residual market provider, with limits on the underwriting fluidity primarily stemming from state-by-state regulatory impediments, such as limits on pricing and capital mobility. There are arguably either no or extremely few insurers that are TBTF in the U.S. marketplace.
TICTF, on the other hand, measures the impact and likelihood medium-term impact of the larger economy if the institution were to fail.
The impact is measured not just on the institution's products and activities, but also the economic multiplier of all other commercial activities dependent specifically on that institution. It is also dependent on how correlated an institution's business is with other systemic risk.
Regulation, such as the bank regulation that Obama is proposing, cannot be the means to an end of systematic risk. Other sectors, such as insurance companies & private equity, would be in a position to take over the former risks of banks and the systematic risk would be maintained.
Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, the private-equity firm of the nation's largest commercial bank, owns 25% of the health care company, HCA.
Merrill made the investment when HCA was taken private in a $33 billion leveraged buy out in 2006. Since then, HCA has reduced its debt load, boosted revenue and, as Deal Journal wrote about earlier, is paying a fat $1.75 billion cash fourth quarter dividend to its investors.
White House officials have said the Volcker rule would likely allow commercial banks to make investments on behalf of clients, but not with the bank’s own money. Whether a Volcker rule would affect BofA’s HCA investment remains unclear.
Obama said in his State of the Union address that he would veto any reform legislation that fails to reduce systematic risk.
Systematic risk is essentially the correlation of losses of market participants. There are two main ways to measure systemic risk: Too big To fail (TBTF) and Too interconnected to fail (TICTF).
TBTF compares an institution's size relative to
the national and international marketplace, market share concentration, and competitive barriers to entry or how easily a product can be substituted.
The national insurance marketplace, for example, simply requires capital input to become a player and therefore one homeowner's insurance policy can easily be replaced by another.
a state residual market provider, with limits on the underwriting fluidity primarily stemming from state-by-state regulatory impediments, such as limits on pricing and capital mobility. There are arguably either no or extremely few insurers that are TBTF in the U.S. marketplace.
TICTF, on the other hand, measures the impact and likelihood medium-term impact of the larger economy if the institution were to fail.
The impact is measured not just on the institution's products and activities, but also the economic multiplier of all other commercial activities dependent specifically on that institution. It is also dependent on how correlated an institution's business is with other systemic risk.
Regulation, such as the bank regulation that Obama is proposing, cannot be the means to an end of systematic risk. Other sectors, such as insurance companies & private equity, would be in a position to take over the former risks of banks and the systematic risk would be maintained.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
A Green Battle
"The world has absolutely no hope of making any substantial impact on global warming without major scientific breakthroughs, almost all which will come from United States' innovation," said Robert Nelsen, co-founder and managing director of Arch Venture Partners.
An estimated $150 billion invested globally last year was only about half what is required annually by 2015 to avoid dangerous climate change, the International Energy Agency estimates.
The question comes down to this: will China's highly capitalized command-and-control economy trump laissez-faire in a low-carbon shift that is widely portrayed as the next industrial revolution?
The failure in Copenhagen to agree to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a new global climate treaty when it expires in 2012 has thrown the focus on national measures. And by almost all accounts, the Chinese are coming on strong.
Beijing's top leaders have made clear their intention to have their nation dominate this new industry, up and down the value ladder. And in their quest for the prize, they are not burdened by concerns facing their Western counterparts -- such as the impact of wind turbines on landscapes, higher energy prices for consumers, or investor returns.
China is leapfrogging global wind power rankings with a combination of aggressive growth targets and domestic support. It has doubled its entire installed capacity each year since 2005, according to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC).
As he and other investors see it, British policymakers have to make a choice: either create bigger incentives for investors to underwrite offshore wind power or impose additional taxes on fossil fuels, which would make carbon-based energy less profitable.
Very, very interesting. Since Copenhagen failed, the focus has split from a global effort to a national effort, and the war has begun. China's top-down approach will combat Europe's 2020 20% goal. The business incentives also appear to line up nicely for China. Another note is that shareholder rights need to be a part of the process. If preferred shares are utilized to direct conventional oil companies to invest in greener technologies, investors can come to the rescue.
Furthermore, Western businesses are worried China is freezing them out of this lucrative market, preferring to nurture its own nascent industries without subjecting them to competition.
"The state-owned energy company sets up its development arm and they then go to a state-owned bank to get the funding, and they go to a state-owned grid company to make sure they can get a grid connection, and then lo and behold! If there's a bidding process, the state-owned turbine manufacturers happen to win the contracts," said McNamara.
This may have its downsides, as some Western analysts say that ultimately, a free-market approach will provide the competitive means for innovation in contrast to China's state-controlled, efficient financing approach. Also at stake is a grid to support the added electricity.
An estimated $150 billion invested globally last year was only about half what is required annually by 2015 to avoid dangerous climate change, the International Energy Agency estimates.
The question comes down to this: will China's highly capitalized command-and-control economy trump laissez-faire in a low-carbon shift that is widely portrayed as the next industrial revolution?
The failure in Copenhagen to agree to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a new global climate treaty when it expires in 2012 has thrown the focus on national measures. And by almost all accounts, the Chinese are coming on strong.
Beijing's top leaders have made clear their intention to have their nation dominate this new industry, up and down the value ladder. And in their quest for the prize, they are not burdened by concerns facing their Western counterparts -- such as the impact of wind turbines on landscapes, higher energy prices for consumers, or investor returns.
China is leapfrogging global wind power rankings with a combination of aggressive growth targets and domestic support. It has doubled its entire installed capacity each year since 2005, according to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC).
As he and other investors see it, British policymakers have to make a choice: either create bigger incentives for investors to underwrite offshore wind power or impose additional taxes on fossil fuels, which would make carbon-based energy less profitable.
Very, very interesting. Since Copenhagen failed, the focus has split from a global effort to a national effort, and the war has begun. China's top-down approach will combat Europe's 2020 20% goal. The business incentives also appear to line up nicely for China. Another note is that shareholder rights need to be a part of the process. If preferred shares are utilized to direct conventional oil companies to invest in greener technologies, investors can come to the rescue.
Furthermore, Western businesses are worried China is freezing them out of this lucrative market, preferring to nurture its own nascent industries without subjecting them to competition.
"The state-owned energy company sets up its development arm and they then go to a state-owned bank to get the funding, and they go to a state-owned grid company to make sure they can get a grid connection, and then lo and behold! If there's a bidding process, the state-owned turbine manufacturers happen to win the contracts," said McNamara.
This may have its downsides, as some Western analysts say that ultimately, a free-market approach will provide the competitive means for innovation in contrast to China's state-controlled, efficient financing approach. Also at stake is a grid to support the added electricity.
Awaiting US trade negotiations with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea
From Reuters
Democrats complain Colombia has not done enough to stop violence against trade unionist and they want changes in Panama's tax haven laws and labor regime.
Midwestern lawmakers, including some Republicans, are unhappy with auto provisions of the Korean agreement they say fail to tear down barriers that keep American cars out.
U.S. trade officials also met recently with Ford Motor Co (F.N) President Alan Mulally, whose company is the loudest industry opponent of the Korean pact.
U.S. Wheat farmers -- reliant on exports for half their sales -- said they were anxious for the Colombia pact to pass, noting Canada will soon ratify a similar deal, which would give it a leg up in that market.
Obama said in his State of the Union Address that he wants to double U.S. exports in 5 years, supposedly supporting some 2 million jobs within the U.S. Trade pacts with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea have historically been blocked by Democratic party opposition. Obama's remarks are meant to real in Republican interests to help support other Obama initiatives such as health care reform.
But Daniel Price, a lawyer at Sidley Austin and former White House adviser to George W. Bush, said many would be "puzzled" by Obama's failure to explicitly urge approval of the deals and instead only call for stronger trade ties.
If Obama were to actually push these deals through Congress, he would risk dividing the Democratic party, many of whom have been against such negotiations since they began during the Bush administration. These Democrats blame the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of the early 1990s and China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 for the loss of millions of US manufacturing jobs.
Democrats complain Colombia has not done enough to stop violence against trade unionist and they want changes in Panama's tax haven laws and labor regime.
Midwestern lawmakers, including some Republicans, are unhappy with auto provisions of the Korean agreement they say fail to tear down barriers that keep American cars out.
U.S. trade officials also met recently with Ford Motor Co (F.N) President Alan Mulally, whose company is the loudest industry opponent of the Korean pact.
U.S. Wheat farmers -- reliant on exports for half their sales -- said they were anxious for the Colombia pact to pass, noting Canada will soon ratify a similar deal, which would give it a leg up in that market.
Obama said in his State of the Union Address that he wants to double U.S. exports in 5 years, supposedly supporting some 2 million jobs within the U.S. Trade pacts with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea have historically been blocked by Democratic party opposition. Obama's remarks are meant to real in Republican interests to help support other Obama initiatives such as health care reform.
But Daniel Price, a lawyer at Sidley Austin and former White House adviser to George W. Bush, said many would be "puzzled" by Obama's failure to explicitly urge approval of the deals and instead only call for stronger trade ties.
If Obama were to actually push these deals through Congress, he would risk dividing the Democratic party, many of whom have been against such negotiations since they began during the Bush administration. These Democrats blame the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of the early 1990s and China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 for the loss of millions of US manufacturing jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)