Saturday, December 8, 2007

Real Estate, Disposable Income, Debt, and Home Equity

The following charts are all created from Table B.100 in the Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States. I have divided all data in the following charts by personal disposable income (to give some idea what our ability to pay for things would be).



This chart shows the tangible real estate household assets. Be warned that I've set the left scale's starting point at 100% (vs. 0%) so that more detail can be seen. In order to get the black line back down to the long-term exponential trend line either real estate asset prices must come down (presumably through deflation) and/or personal disposable incomes must go up (presumably through inflation). Heaven help us all if they both come down (recession?). That wouldn't necessarily help improve this picture much, unless real estate prices came down much faster than disposable incomes.

Further, there is no guarantee that the exponential growth is even sustainable. Japan found that out the hard way when their population stopped growing.

Please note the change in behavior in the chart once we fell off the gold standard in the early 1970s.



This stacked chart shows where the value of our homes lie. As a current homeowner, I'm of the belief that structures are depreciating assets. They should therefore not keep up with inflation unless you are willing to continually pump money into them (repaint the house, replace the carpets, roof, windows, and so on). It would make sense that the land itself is continually worth more though, assuming the population continues to grow.

The thing that most strikes me about the chart is that as the land became more expensive, we opted to put more expensive houses on it. In other words, we somehow rationalized that we could have our cake and eat it too. It is the same thing we heckle our government about. When given the choice between more expensive land and more expensive structures, we opted for both! It doesn't stop there though. If you've got a nice chunk of land and a nice house on top of it, might just as well park a few nice cars in the driveway, right? In relation to the price of homes these days, luxury cars are cheap apparently.

How did we pull that little trick off? Inquiring minds want to know!



The best way to look at this stacked chart might be to start at the bottom. First is the mortgage debt. That alone should make people cringe. I've added on consumer credit (which may or may not be appropriate depending on how you want to look at it). The remaining amount I'm calling the equity in the house. As can be seen in the chart, we have really embraced debt.

Here's something else that should make people cringe. Not all homeowners have embraced debt. There's a good chunk of the population that has their house paid off. That means the potential pain seen above is potentially concentrated.

Here's another thing that should make people cringe. Median incomes have not kept up with inflation during this housing boom. The richest among us are pulling up the averages. Can the median homeowner really afford the median home? I'm thinking the answer could turn out to be no. If so, that will pose great problems for Bernanke's magical prosperity printing press. Inflation isn't going to solve a problem of affordability. In my opinion, inflation makes it worse.

Picture what's going to happen to that chart if home prices drop 15%. The word ugly does not do it justice. Much of the damage would be immediately inflicted on the green section. The yellow and red sections could also take damage though, especially if the bankruptcy word becomes popular once again.

Normally I'd look at these charts and want to scream deflation at the top of my lungs. I guess we'll see just how much yellow and red pain Bernanke and our government are willing to allow. Bankruptcy is not the only "b" word that comes to mind. Bailout and banks do as well.

You will note that I was a good American in these charts. I didn't attempt to work in our rising national debt. Let's just continue to ignore that problem since we're not really sent a bill for that directly. It just shows up in the price of oil sometimes and may bleed over into food. Who knows!

See Also:
Calculated Risk: Fed: Existing Household Real Estate Assets Decline $67 Billion in Q3

Source Data:
FRB: Flow of Funds

Friday, December 7, 2007

Rocketing Housing Debt (Musical Tribute)



Housing debt continues to climb ($5 trillion in just six years). I wonder if we can continue to double it every six years?



It doesn't seem likely. We were on a trillion dollar a year pace, but something seems to be slowing our rate of climb recently.



Perhaps gravity is bringing us back down to the cold hard reality of earth.



The trend lines in the charts represent one very dire outcome out of many. I'm not attempting to predict the future, but merely offer a warning.

See Also:
The Physics of Home Mortgage Debt - 2007 - Q2
Trend Line Disclaimer

Source Data:
FRB: Flow of Funds Accounts

Corporate Profits

Here are a few updated charts from the most recent Flow of Funds data.



This chart shows the total domestic financial, farm, and non-financial corporation profits (before taxes and adjusted for inflation) divided by the population. As can be seen quite clearly, the busting of the dotcom bubble has ushured in a new era of corporate profitability unprecedented in modern times. It is a wonder we didn't pop it sooner. *basic sarcasm*

Heck, why stop there? Let's pop the housing bubble! The sooner we do it the richer we will all become! It is quite clear that the Fed can inject extra prosperity into the monetary system any time we might require it. Helicopters are standing by. Woohoo! *expanded sarcasm*

As a side note, why are inflation adjusted corporate profits per capita seemingly stagnating and quite possibly in a down trend? That's some conundrum. *premium sarcasm*


Today's "on demand" sarcasm was based on Cable TV pricing. Perhaps that's worth another look.

You Sank My Comcast Battleship!
This year hasn't been as good to Comcast and its cable peers, including Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) and Cablevision (NYSE: CVC). Economic softening has halted the previous brisk customer sign-up pace, while competition from telephone companies Verizon (NYSE: VZ) and AT&T (NYSE: T), along with satellite video providers DirecTV (NYSE: DTV) and EchoStar (Nasdaq: DISH), has intensified.

Forgive me for saying so, but isn't economic softness and intensified competition a rather bad combo for continued fat corporate profits?



This chart shows the total domestic financial, farm, and non-financial corporation profits (before taxes) divided by the total compensation of employees.

How long will it be before we return to the red trend line? Or is this a new permanent era of prosperity? Note that the long-term trend is down. I believe I can offer a simple explanation for that. I would think that in a capitalistic society, competition would eventually squeeze the life out of all profits.

If money can be made, someone will figure out a way to extract it. If a lot of money can be made (like right now it seems), MANY people will find MANY different ways to extract it. You know, just like homebuilders in California once were. Build them fast and sell them even faster!

I excluded the profits made off the "rest of the world" primarily because I'm interested in how our domestic economy is doing. Right now it is doing absolutely fantastic. Just look at all those fat profits ripe for the picking. You'll excuse me if I wait until the bottom falls out first though. I'm no thrill seeker these days.

I've been sitting on some cash awaiting an opportunity, and our recent "productivity miracle" mindset has me liking the look of the 2.13% real yield on the 20-year treasury inflation protected securities. Maybe that IS the opportunity. It just so happens the next auction is in January. Here's hoping Santa Claus can continue to push real rates higher because I'm really starting to like the looks of what he's offering.


This is not investment advice. No crystal balls can be found here. I'm just throwing darts at the board wondering where they might stick.

Source Data:
FRB: Flow of Funds Accounts

Employment Situation



One month does not a trend make, but it is somewhat encouraging. It is actually even a bit better (coming in at 4.66%) than the headlines (4.7%).

In fact, it could be doing far worse (as seen in the sharp upward spike in 2001). I'd be tempted to point a skeptical finger towards the birth/death model perhaps, but the ADP report earlier this week also showed reasons for some optimism. Although my girlfriend is still unemployed, she's also somewhat encouraged by what she calls a recent boost in job postings (in the Seattle area) that fit her background.

Job Growth Robust, ADP Report Says; Other Data Disagree

These are confusing times to say the least (yet another reason why I'm attempting to sit on the sidelines and wait it out). I'm going to go back to what has recently become my favorite quote.

Paranoia will get you through times of no enemies better than enemies will get you through times of no paranoia. - Peter Granger

The government wants its take in good times and bad. During the good times we barely seem to notice. During the bad times we notice all too much. There really is no adequate defense for inflation and slowing growth. I would therefore love to be wrong about stagflation. The way my investments are aligned, stagflation would hurt me less than most, but would still hurt me just the same (especially over the long-term).

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Household Survey Data

The Return of the Living Dead Real Yields v.2



The market clearly wants to believe in a productivity miracle to save the day. As I look at the housing situation I'm hoping for a miracle too.

See Also:
The Return of the Living Dead Real Yields

Source Data:
FRB: Selected Interest Rates
Bloomberg: Rates & Bonds

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Markets ill-prepared for stagflation

Market insight: Markets ill-prepared for stagflation
The outlook for financial markets in 2008 is not encouraging. Although the past five years have seen the strongest global economy since the late 1960s, the expansion has now reached the cyclical juncture at which market returns are typically very weak or negative.

The US economy is leading the way, having already entered a stagflationary phase. Such an environment is poisonous for financial assets. Since 1929, the average real return from US equities, bonds and bills has been markedly negative during years of below trend growth and above trend inflation. Equities, by way of example, average a negative 1.9 per cent real return during such years.


MAB spoke of this article in the comment section of a previous article.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Email Notification Broken

Normally I get an email notification when someone leaves me a comment. It isn't working today.

I've tried to go back through the recent comments and reply to everyone, but I'm a rather prolific poster (to say the least) and have no great desire to reread everything I've done.

I therefore apologize if you've left a comment and I've seemingly ignored it. It was not intentional.

Productivity Miracle? (Musical Tribute)



Santa Claus is working on his year end stock market rally. He's once again found a way to create more toys with even fewer workers it seems.

Productivity miracle investing environments are generally associated with rising real rates of return (the blue line), a rising stock market, and falling (and/or low) inflation expectations (the red line). That's what we've been seeing since hitting the bottom just over a week ago (November 26, 2007).

So, let's assume for a moment that this new environment is sustainable.

As stagflationists, it hurts us in the short-term. As real rates of return rise, the value of our current investments tied to real rates of return falls. For example, my TIPS fund lost 1% today (well up for the year though). Gold and silver also had a bad day.

As savers, it helps us in the long-term. My TIPS fund now has a higher real yield. That higher real yield in the coming 30+ years will more than offset any temporary short-term losses. As a long-term saver, I would therefore welcome the productivity miracle.

As retirees, it helps us in the long-term. It is far easier to protect savings in a productivity miracle environment.

As workers, it helps us in the short-term. Companies are more willing to hire if the economy is doing well. However, I do not believe it helps us in the long-term. We've been seeing this in the median incomes since 2000. They are not keeping up with inflation. Productivity miracles mean fewer workers are needed to do the same amount of work. Productivity miracles certainly do help the CEO though. If one extrapolates this to its logical conclusion though, how are people supposed to earn a living in a world where ever increasing numbers of jobs are automated and/or outsourced away?

Here's a musical tribute to the ridiculously compensated CEO who continually finds ways to do get more done with fewer people. You make it look so easy.



See Also:
Productivity Surges by 4.9 Percent Rate
Productivity Miracle
Automation and Inequality

Source Data:
FRB: Selected Interest Rates
Bloomberg: Rates & Bonds