July 30, 2006

Why Buy When You Can Rent?

By Rich Toscano

San Diego renters often express frustration at having missed the housing boom of a lifetime and fear that they will now never be able to purchase a home. Well, I think they ought to buck up. Relatively speaking, they are getting an amazing deal.

Even as San Diego home prices headed to the stratosphere these last few years, local rents grew at a fairly subdued pace. (This fact should, but apparently does not, cause people to doubt the fundamental underpinnings of the housing boom — but I digress!) The end result is that it costs quite a bit more to buy a given home than to rent that same home.

I am fortunate to have some good data on this very topic, as friends of mine recently moved into a single family home that was purchased just a few months back. They pay $1,900 per month to rent a home that was purchased for $535,000. Both these figures are typical for the area, so I believe this to be a fairly representative case.


Let’s crunch those numbers.

First we will assume that, had our friends purchased the home themselves, they would have financed the entire purchase price with a 30-year mortgage at the most recent average rate of 6.6 percent. They could not do this, of course; they would have to get a second “piggyback loan” at a higher rate. For simplicity’s sake, however, let’s just say they got that great rate on the full loan amount. If you are wondering why our hypothetical buyers didn’t get one of those hip new loans that allow them to lower their monthly payments, read this article.
Related Links


Some other assumptions must be made as well. We will assume they purchased a very reasonable homeowner’s insurance policy, for example. And in order to calculate the beloved mortgage interest tax deduction, we will give home ownership the benefit of the doubt and assume that our friends pay a fairly high tax rate of 35 percent overall.

If these folks had purchased the home in the manner described above, they would have been responsible for the following monthly outlays:

# Mortgage principal: $474

# Mortgage interest: $2,943

# Property tax: $490

# Insurance: $100

Mortgage principal shouldn’t be counted as a cost, because the buyer is effectively paying that to himself. And of course we must subtract the 35 percent deduction on mortgage interest.

Overall, once we make those final tweaks, we see that the purchaser of this home would be divesting himself of just a bit over $2,500 per month. In addition to the assumption of very favorable tax and insurance rates, this $2,500 per month figure is predicated on the idea that the 80-year-old home will require no maintenance.

The renter who is shelling out only $1,900 each month seems to be getting a deal. Even under our unrealistically cheerful assumptions, it would cost 32 percent more each month to own the place than to rent it. Put another way, the buyer would be out an extra $7,200 each year.

The standard objections to renting make little sense in a situation like this. Take the old saw that “renters are just paying their landlord’s mortgage.” In fact, they are not coming close. They are only paying enough to cover the after-tax mortgage interest — hardly the renter-to-landlord transfer of wealth that the saying would imply.

Similarly, renters are often told that they “should be building equity.” But who is the one building equity in this situation? I would posit that it’s the renter who saves $7,200 each year by choosing not to own. A yearly savings of $7,200, wisely invested, will make for a nice little down payment when home prices finally move back into line with rents. (Remember down payments? Yeah, they’ll be back eventually.)

What arguments of this type fail to take into account is that homebuyers are themselves renters — it’s just that instead of renting homes, they are renting money from the bank. And when homes cost so much that the “rent” on the money required to purchase a home — otherwise known as the mortgage interest is more than the rent required to simply live in that same home, aphorisms like these cease to apply.

Of course, when used in the manner above, the word “equity” does not refer to wealth that is saved by avoiding excessive carrying costs. It refers to wealth gained by owning a home that is increasing in price. That’s a great plan, as long as homes are actually increasing in price — but they are not, nor should they be expected to for years to come.

People who bought homes five years ago ended up gaining a tremendous amount of money through price appreciation, but that train has left the station.

This isn’t 2001, it’s 2006 — and from a purely financial perspective, renters here in 2006 are making out like bandits.

But there is more to life than money. Homeowners enjoy non-financial benefits like the ability to do whatever they want with the place, such as change out the cabinets, plant their own gladiolas, or, as in the house I am renting, inexplicably festoon the back yard with concrete and rebar garden gnomes. Owners can also have as many pets as they want and don’t have to worry about their landlords selling their homes out from under them.

At the same time, it’s important to understand the cost of those softer benefits. Just how much do you want those garden gnomes? Unless it’s an awful lot, you may be better off renting in a market like this.

Rich Toscano is an independent real estate analyst residing in Hillcrest and working in La Jolla. He writes extensively about San Diego housing at Piggington’s Econo-Almanac.

Voice Of San Diego



Permalink • Print • Comment

July 27, 2006

The Yield Curve Conspiracy Theory

by RodgerRafter

There has been some hype in the media about the yield curve inverting and how that often leads to a recession. I have three main points to make:

First, the yield curve has not inverted, it has been perverted.
Second, the US treasury yield curve has become perverted by huge distortions and imbalances in the greater global economy.
Third, it’s all relative.

With regard to the first point:
The following chart shows the yield curve at certain key points in time:



1/2/01 was when the curve was most inverted before the 2001/02 recession.
6/13/03 was when rates were lowest, during the deflation scare.
6/29/04 was when the curve was steepest, one day before the Fed started its current series of rate hikes.
1/17/06 was when the curve became most inverted early in the year.

When prices change, there is money to be made. It follows that those with the power to move rates have the power to make money for the well positioned. Some might argue that fluctuating interest rates reflect uncertainties in the economic landscape. I contend that large movements in interest rates are controlled to meet the political and financial goals of key institutions. I use the word "perverted" to describe the curve, rather than "inverted" because I think the yield curve is intentionally distorted by the Fed and Wall St. institutions.

Let me suggest that the yield curve became "inverted" because the Fed intentionally tightened interest rates too much during the 2000 presidential campaign to help undermine the Democratic candidacy. With the stock market crashing, the Fed continued to boost interest rates into May and kept them high until after the election. Soon after the election was over, the Fed conducted 2.5% worth of rate cuts in 5 months.

Let me suggest that the yield curve became lowest in 2003 to help stimulate the economy for the 2004 campaign. The stock market had bottomed in October of 2002, but the Fed cut rates another 0.75% to absurdly low levels and stoked fears of deflation. As ridiculous as that sounds in the era of fiat money, the markets reacted to it.

Let me suggest that the yield curve became steepest in 2004 to help stimulate the hedge fund industry as a way to boost Wall Street trading volumes and profits. Short term profits became automatic as fund managers were able to borrow at ultra low rates an invest in any asset class imaginable. Of course this created huge long term risks, as there are always too many managers eager to seize short term profits.

Let me suggest that the curve has become "perverted" now as the Fed desperately seeks to prop up the dollar without wrecking the carry trade excesses of the last 3 years. The carry traders have their backs to the wall, as their borrowing costs have risen and they can’t afford to have bond prices fall on rising long bond yields. Meanwhile, the US government’s debt service has risen to over $400 billion per year. Meanwhile, the mortgage industry is feeling the squeeze as borrowers get scared away by rising rates. Long bond rates must stay low, or the system unravels. Active intervention is needed to override natural market forces.

The 2000-2001 inversion correctly forecast falling short-term rates into 2003, but the current perversion isn’t really forecasting anything, as far as I can tell. One could argue that the curve is calling for an extended period of unchanging interest rates after a few more hikes, but then the entire yield curve would still be too low relative to inflation.

In recent months, interest rates have been allowed to move up gradually. I expect that a rapid rise would break the system, while a slow rise keeps the derivatives markets intact and the dollar afloat. Here’s a chart of the yield curve at various times this year:

The curve has steepened and perverted alternately as pressure has built on long bond yields and then subsided. January 17th, saw the maximum perversion before treasury demand in February and March drove rates up. Now the curve is perverted again, but that may be difficult to maintain. We’ll see how Paulson does as head of the treasury.


With regard to the second point:
My take is that yields are suppressed by artificial demand on the short end and in the 5-10 year bonds and by limited supply on the long end. There may be many potential explanations for this, including:

1. Derivatives underwriters may have high demand for 5-10 year treasuries. There has been an extreme expansion of the mortgage market based on surging home prices, 0% down mortgages and cash-out refinancing. This has mainly been fueled with short term financing and many of the investors in mortgages have sought to hedge away interest rate risk by purchasing interest rate swaps and other derivatives. The underwriters have then sought to balance their own risks by purchasing 5-10 year treasuries. This has had the added effect of keeping mortgage rates down, with fixed rate mortgage rates linked closely to 10-year treasury yields.

2. The Government has created a shortage of supply on the long end. The US government has been seeking to bring down interest expense on the national debt by issuing more short term securities relative to long term securities.

Read more….


Permalink • Print • Comment

July 26, 2006

Exposing The Big Credit Squeeze

by Danny Schechter; MediaChannel.org;

When I started out, my film was going to be about other people’s economic woes. Pretty soon I realized I was part of this story of how the credit industry targets poor and middle-class Americans. Not only was I a target, too, but all of us are.

There is a credit divide in America that fuels our economic divide. Put another way, the globalization of our economy is about more than outsourcing of jobs. There is a deeper shift underway from a society based around production, with the factory as the symbol of American economic prowess, to a culture driven by consumption, with the mall as its dominant icon.

My film, titled “In Debt We Trust,” combines story telling, often in a voice laced with outrage, with investigative inquiry. It’s about a nation where our credit score is the only score many people and institutions care about, and where vast data bases record our every purchase and consumer choice. Ours has become a nation in which the carrot of instant affluence is quickly menaced by the harsh stick of bill collectors, lawsuits, and foreclosures. And yet, this bubble can burst: The slickest of our bankers and the savviest of our marketers have not been able to undo the law of gravity, that what goes up must come down.

Viewers of our film will be transported behind the scenes to meet the biggest scammers of them, the engineers and operators of the billion dollar credit card industry who have researched the details and minutiae of consumer needs and our fantasies so that they can deploy the deceptive art of seductive marketing and modern usury. We will scrutinize a carefully conceived but stealth electronic Web, designed to entrap, cajole, and co-opt the most powerful consumer culture on earth. It teases us with a financial advance when we want it, then sucks it away from us with more force than we realize.

 

Reporting These Stories

In the old days the poor couldn’t qualify for loans. Today, they are considered among the better risks because unlike the rich many feel an obligation to pay back. Steve Barnett, who worked in the credit card industry and will appear in our film, explains: “These are the perfect customers. They need credit, so they’re not all that concerned about interest. They’ll take a higher interest if you will grant them credit.
They’ll pay off a small amount each month so they’re in a sense ‘on the hook.’ And because of their own sense of values or because of their own background, their family background, they’re not likely to declare bankruptcy again. Given the change of laws that’s more difficult anyway.” And manufacturers now know they can spur sales by lending money to buyers up front and then get them to pay twice—first, at the register, then with credit card payments, big interest rates and compounded interest.

Given the ubiquitousness of these practices – and the reasons why they exist and persist that stretch from corporate America into the halls of government and revolve around issues of corporate greed and political favors – the expanding gaps between those who have (and then have more) and those who don’t (but pay anyway) need to be explored and exposed by journalists. I am raising this issue, and suggesting ways that it can be reported, because I believe this is an essential story for us to tell.

• Report more regularly on these credit issues; billions of dollars are involved, not to mention millions of lives.

• Identify the key corporate institutions and contrast the compensation of their executives with the financial circumstances of their customers.

• Shine a spotlight on how special interests and lobbyists for financial institutions contribute to members of Congress and other politicians, across party lines, to ensure their desired policies and regulations.

Investigate political influence affected by campaign contributions. Some reporting about this took place during the bankruptcy debate, but there has been little follow-up.

• Examine the influence credit card companies have on media companies through their extensive advertising.

• Take a hard look at the predatory practices in poor neighborhoods – and crimes committed against poor and working class people, who are least able to defend themselves. Legal service lawyers tell me that they are overwhelmed by the scale of mortgage scams involving homes whose value have been artificially inflated.

• Focus attention on what consumers can do to fight back. Robert Manning, author of “Credit Card Nation,” explains: “If ten percent of American credit cardholders withheld their monthly payments, it would bring the financial services industry to a standstill. At a larger issue, what we have to do is to get people involved at the state level, get their state attorney generals involved, aggressively filing class action lawsuits and then putting pressure on key legislators to say, ‘This is unacceptable that they’re not representing and balancing the issues of commerce with consumers. The balance is tilted dramatically against the average American.’”

 

The Story’s Key Ingredients

Class struggle is assuming a new form in the conflict between creditors and lenders that reaches into many Americans’ homes, where each month bills are juggled and rejuggled with today’s credit card bills paid by tomorrow’s new card. Meanwhile, with interest compounding at usurious rates, indebt ness grows and people sink even deeper into debts they cannot manage. In this conflict, companies function as well-organized machines while borrowers are forced to react as individuals. Many are browbeaten with lectures about “personal responsibility” by corporations that only pay lip service to any form of social responsibility.

Centuries ago, we had debtors prisons. Today, many homes BECOME similar kinds of prisons, where debtors struggle with personal finance issues. The scale of indebtedness is staggering as consumers simply follow their government’s lead. As of Christmas 2005 the national debt stood at: $8,179,165,267,626.42. Break that down and each American’s share comes to $27,439.48, and our nation’s debt increases $2.83 billion each day. Add to that two trillion more for consumer debt including mortgages. That’s a lot of money.

Who is really responsible for it? Few of us seem to know. And fewer appear to know what can be done about it. “They’re never going to be repaid,” says economic historian Michael Hudson who for many years worked at Chase Bank. “Adam Smith said that no government had ever repaid its debts and the same can be said of the private sector. The U.S. government does not intend to repay its trillion dollar debt to foreign central banks and, even if it did intend to, there’s no way in which it could. Most of the corporations now are avoiding paying their pension fund debts and their health care debts.”

The government and big companies might not have to pay, but regular people do, as our collective consumer debt has doubled to the past ten years. With mortgage debt included, it’s now reached seven trillion dollars. Hudson compares the plight of millions of debtors in the United States to serfs of an age gone by: “For many people, debts now absorb 40 percent of their income. So many people are paying all of their take home wages over and above basic expenses for debt service. And that’s rising. In effect, 90 percent of the American population is indebted to the top 10 percent of the population.”

The coffers of creditors – funded by the most prestigious banks and financial institutions – are swelling with payments for arbitrarily imposed late fees and RISING interest rates that seem to be largely unregulated. Borrowing is now a national habit. Fueling this shift globally has been our national debt—now in the trillions—as other countries finance our trade imbalances and keep our economy strong. Without that influx of money, the U.S. economy would be in crisis. Everyone in the know knows this, but they do little to deal with it, relying on the theory that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Occasional warnings and lots of noise surface about cutting the government’s annual deficit, including a devastating report by Comptroller General Davis Walker who compares the United States today to Rome before its fall. He is dismissed as a “prophet of gloom: and barely covere din the press our debts keep growing. All of this borrowed money keeps people pacified and, for the most part, politically complacent for now..

So many of us live beyond our means. This is not news, but isn’t found in most news reporting is how this shift has been engineered through corporate decisions that are aided and abetted by government polices. Questions of by whom and for whom need more and better investigation, as well as a look at who are the losers and who are the winners.

Business reporting that focuses on the upticks and downticks of the market provides little room for explanation, analysis or connecting-the-dots journalism. In part, that is a result of the fact that many of our major media companies don’t operate in a world apart from these pressures. At least ten credit card solicitations have arrived recently in my mail, and the Disney (owner of ABC television network) card was in that pile. Many credit cards boast of partnerships and discounts from media companies and entertainment providers, from subscriptions to DVDs. Like car companies and airlines before them, the media industry has discovered that there’s money to be made in the credit business, and so credit card companies become big media advertisers. Why alienate them?

This credit squeeze is hitting the news business, too. Jobs are being cut and reporting trimmed. Joe Strupp of Editor & Publisher observed in his 2005 media wrap up, "Using the bizarre premise that newspapers can bring back lost circulation and ad revenue by making their products worse, top executives at major chains from The New York Times Company to Tribune took a butcher knife to staffing with buyouts and layoffs that appeared almost epidemic."

What happens to news business employees laid off in this environment? Like those in other industries where cost-cutting leads to unemployment, they enter what insiders in the credit business call “the turnstyle,” living on more and more credit from cards, soon to be followed by a dip into home equity. Nor have wages and benefits kept up with inflation, and many are being cut. Health care extensions after a job ends are over within a year, and then what? What’s the alternative? More debt is one of the few accessible options. The turnstyle keeps turning as personal debt keeps growing.

These issues and scams can be reported, and they must be not just in consumer advice columns and soft features but with hard-hitting and serious investigative reports.

ZNET


Permalink • Print • Comment

Mortgage Industry Threatened By Red Paper-Clips!

A 26-year-old Montreal man appears to have succeeded in his quest to barter a single, red paper-clip all the way up to a house.

It took almost a year and 14 trades, but Kyle MacDonald has been offered a two-storey farmhouse in Kipling, Sask., for a paid role in a movie.

MacDonald began his quest last summer when he decided he wanted to live in a house. He didn’t have a job, so instead of posting a resumé, he looked at a red paper-clip on his desk and decided to trade it on an internet website.

He got a response almost immediately — from a pair of young women in Vancouver who offered to trade him a pen that looks like a fish.

MacDonald then bartered the fish pen for a handmade doorknob from a potter in Seattle.

In Massachusetts, MacDonald traded the doorknob for a camp stove. He traded the stove to a U.S. marine sergeant in California for a 100-watt generator.

In Queens, N.Y., he exchanged the generator for the "instant party kit" — an empty keg and an illuminated Budweiser beer sign.

MacDonald then traded the keg and sign for a Bombardier snowmobile, courtesy of a Montreal radio host.

He bartered all the way up to an afternoon with rock star Alice Cooper, a KISS snow globe and finally a paid role in a Corbin Bernsen movie called Donna on Demand.

"Now, I’m sure the first question on your mind is, "Why would Corbin Bernsen trade a role in a film for a snow globe? A KISS snow globe," MacDonald said on his website "one red paper-clip."

"Well, Corbin happens to be arguably one of the biggest snow globe collectors on the planet."

Now, the town of Kipling, Sask., located about two hours east of Regina with a population of 1,100, has offered MacDonald a farmhouse in exchange for the role in the movie.

MacDonald and his girlfriend will fly to the town next Wednesday.

"We are going to show them the house, give them the keys to the house and give them the key to the town and just have some fun," said Pat Jackson, mayor of Kipling.

The town is going to hold a competition for the movie role.

MacDonald said: "There’s people all over the world that are saying that they have paper-clips clipped to the top of their computer, or on their desk or on their shirt, and it proves that anything is possible and I think to a certain degree it’s true."

MacDonald, who has attracted international media in his quest, said the journey has turned out to be more exciting than the goal.

"This is not the end. This may be the end of this segment of the story, but this story will go on. "

CBC


Permalink • Print • Comment
Next Page »