Archive for July, 2008

Case-Shiller Index — Chart of the Day

Kurt Brouwer July 29th, 2008

cr-caseshillermay2008.jpg

Sources: Calculated Risk & Standard & Poor’s

Home prices fell again in May as shown on this chart prepared from data released by Standard & Poor’s.  Here is the full report.

Though I may be premature, the data, the chart and anecdotal information I’ve seen all suggest that the steep declines in home prices may be slowing a bit.  Whether I’m right or not, this downward trend will continue.  Though monthly price decreases may be tapering off, valuations are still ahead of the long-term price trend and the stock of unsold housing is high.  Assuming both of these observations are correct, we may be entering the beginning of a long period in which home prices drift downward slowly or simply stagnate.

However, these price declines are good news for those who want to buy a home.  Right now, credit conditions for home mortgages are tighter than they used to be, but financing is still available.  And, the long-term demographics of population growth and household formation suggest that demand for housing is going to continue to grow once we get through this slump.

Stocks Fall — Bad News On Housing, Banks & The Budget

Kurt Brouwer July 28th, 2008

U.S. stocks fell today on a litany of negative news reports

The DJ Industrials fell 239.61 points or 2.11%

The S&P 500 fell 23.38 points or 1.86%

The Nasdaq Composite fell 46.31 points or 2.00%

The negative reports were numerous, but here are the main ones:

  • Bloomberg reported that the International Monetary Fund thinks there is no end in sight to the U.S. housing crisis.  I cannot really fathom why this is news, but it seemed to spook the markets.  I don’t even know why we are supposed to care what the IMF has to say about U.S. housing.  I did particularly appreciate the snarky comment about the IMF in the second paragraph below:

The International Monetary Fund said there’s no end in sight to the U.S. housing recession and warned that deteriorating credit conditions for consumers and banks may prolong a period of slow economic growth.“At the moment, a bottom for the housing market is not visible,” the IMF said in its Global Financial Stability Report, released today in Washington. “Stemming the decline in the U.S. housing market is necessary for market stabilization as this would help both households and financial institutions to recover.”

The IMF, which a year ago failed to foresee the depth of the subprime mortgage collapse, stood by its April forecast for about $1 trillion in losses stemming from the U.S. mortgage crisis. While U.S. policy makers have helped contain the financial losses, “credit risks remain elevated” and banks need to raise more capital…

  • Financial stocks tumbled yet again in part due to negative reports on their future earnings, but two new bank failures last week — coming on the heels of the IndyMac Bank failure (see here for more)  — probably contributed to these concerns.  I’m not downplaying the severity of the issues faced by financial stocks, but this too is nothing new.  Apparently though, there is fresh concern about another new problem arising and this piece from the International Herald Tribune tries to concerns about bank failures in a historical context:

For all the write-downs and bad news on Wall Street over the past year, only five [KB: make that seven] local and regional banks have shut their doors. The handful that have failed have been a small fraction of the size of IndyMac. IndyMac held $32 billion in assets as of late March, according to the government. It has been 15 years since any bank larger than $10 billion in assets collapsed. The largest bank failure on record was in 1984 when Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust in Chicago hit trouble, presaging the savings and loan crisis.

…William Isaac, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in the early 1980s, cautioned against panic. Bank failures so far pale against the 3,000 failures in the 1980s, he said.

  • The government released some estimates on the projected U.S. budget deficit, which is likely to be around $500 billion. Again, this is not new information, but this report seemed to tie into some of the other negatives.  The reasons for the higher projected deficit are lower expected tax revenues and higher spending.  Of course, there is the normal higher spending and then the economic stimulus package higher spending.  Altogether, we’re looking at a deficit of about 3% of GDP or economic output.  This is a bit higher than the 40-year historical average, but not by a huge amount.  This piece from Bloomberg tells the tale:

The U.S. budget deficit will widen to a record $482 billion next year, the Bush administration projected today, leaving a deep budget hole that will constrain the next president’s tax and spending plans. The projected deficit for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 is higher than the $407 billion forecast by President George W. Bush in February. The bigger shortfall reflects dwindling tax receipts because of the U.S. economic slowdown, the cost of a $168 billion economic stimulus package and spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“We’ve already seen a pretty sharp cooling in tax receipts and it’s just going to continue into next fiscal year,” Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Capital Markets, said in a telephone interview…

We are in a bear market for stocks (real estate too obviously) and this type of volatility is not unexpected given the conditions.  We had a week or two of decent news on oil prices and some strength in the dollar, but there is still widespread nervousness out there and we have to expect more of the same.  Even when stocks turn the corner and head upward, we will still see plenty of volatility.  The good news is that volatility ultimately weeds out nervous investors.

As the bad news gets absorbed and financial conditions moderate, the most likely outcome is that consumer sentiment - and the financial markets - will turn more positive, but this may take several months. Several developments are now helping create the underpinnings for revitalized economic and market conditions.

  • The dollar is showing some signs of strength.  The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury are now taking steps to shore up the dollar and this should have important positive effects throughout the economy and the financial markets.  We are beginning to see signs of strength in the exchange rate of the dollar versus the Euro and other foreign currencies.  A stronger dollar should lead to a retreat in oil prices and should also reduce inflationary pressures in food, gas and other necessities (See Gross Likes Dollar vs. Euro For First Time).
  • The credit markets are beginning to stabilize.  Increasing lending activity will also pave the way toward renewed economic growth.
  • The real estate market has experienced a significant correction and is now going through a bottoming process.
  • Underlying values in the stock markets have improved dramatically as many companies continue to perform well and increase shareholder value even while their stock prices have fallen.

I believe the U.S. economy and our financial markets are fundamentally strong and resilient and that they will survive this downturn and begin growing again.  And, patient investors will be rewarded.

See also The Kitchen Sink Stock Market.

Home Ownership — Charts of the Day

Economy Perks Up A Bit

Kurt Brouwer July 25th, 2008

We had two welcome pieces of positive economic news today.  Such sightings are rare so I thought I would just point them out as told in this piece from Bloomberg [emphasis added]:

U.S. Economy: Orders Up, Home Sales Beat Forecast (Bloomberg, July 25, 2008, Courtney Schlisserman and Timothy R. Homan)

Orders for U.S. durable goods unexpectedly rose in June, and sales of new homes were higher than forecast, easing concern that the economic slowdown will worsen.

Bookings for goods made to last several years gained 0.8 percent and posted the first consecutive monthly rise since July 2007, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. New homes sold at an annualized pace of 530,000, exceeding the median forecast of 503,000 in a Bloomberg News survey. A private report showed consumer sentiment rose from a 28-year low.

Stocks rose and Treasuries fell after the reports indicated the economy accelerated in the second quarter from the weakest pace of growth in five years. Economists had forecast that the slowdown would worsen by year-end as the impact of tax rebates fades and as job losses and rising consumer prices force households to cut spending.

“At the end of the day, we are going to avoid a severe recession,” said James O’Sullivan, a senior economist at UBS Securities LLC in Stamford, Connecticut.

The Reuters/University of Michigan final index of consumer sentiment increased to 61.2 in July from 56.4 in June. The measure averaged 85.6 in 2007 and is up from a preliminary reading of 56.6 in early July…

Oil Production Lags Behind GDP Growth — Problems Ensue

Kurt Brouwer July 25th, 2008

itf-interim-rpt-oil-gdp-larger.JPG

Source: Interagency Task Force On Commodities

If you want the simplest explanation of why oil prices have gone up, this chart should do the job.

The economy around the globe has been growing, but oil production flatlined.  We’ll get into the reasons why demand has soared and why production has not kept pace, but this picture tells the story. However, the good news is that all of this is simply a problem of positive growth.  The worldwide economic pie is growing and, due to that growth, demand for oil is increasing.

Oil is a commodity that drives our economy and demand for it is not very sensitive to modest price increases.   Therefore, prices had to go up a lot in order to reduce demand. And, in many countries, demand has been artificially stimulated by government subsidies that kept the price of gas artificially low.  This is true in China, India and other countries.

This report from the U.S. government’s Interagency Task Force on Commodities [emphasis added] makes several important points.  Production has lagged behind economic growth worldwide.  That alone would be an issue, but demand for oil has been artificially stimulated in China and other countries that subsidize the price.  As a result, consumers in those countries were not affected by higher prices:

Interim Report On Crude Oil (Interagency Task Force On Commodities, July 2008)

…On the demand side, world economic activity has expanded at close to 5 percent per year since 2004, marking the strongest performance in two decades. Between 2004 and 2007, global oil consumption grew by 3.9 percent, driven largely by rising demand in emerging markets that are both growing rapidly and shifting toward oil-intensive activities. Also, some of the fastest growing nations also rely on price subsidies that hold down the prices of oil and refined products such as gasoline, which further boosts oil consumption.While global demand has proven strong, oil production growth has not kept pace. In the past three years, non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production growth has slowed to levels well below historical averages, and world surplus capacity has fallen below historical norms. Preliminary inventory data also shows that Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) stocks have fallen below 1996-2002 levels. Moreover, supply disruptions have adversely affected both world oil production and exports.

Under such tight market conditions, it is often the case that only large price increases can re-establish equilibrium between supply and demand. Consequently, large or rapid movements in oil prices are not inconsistent with the fundamentals of supply and demand; such price movements, by themselves, do not indicate that prices have become divorced from fundamentals…

In an earlier post, we made this point as well.  When supplies of a necessity such as food or fuel are tight, enormous price increases have to occur before demand falls.  Prices go up (or down) in relation to imbalances in supply and demand. But, demand for some products like food and fuel is, in economic jargon, relatively inelastic. This means that demand for corn or gas does not respond quickly to price increases or decreases.

In the short run, those who eat corn products or drive cars are going to keep doing so in spite of prices increases. As a result, if there is a supply shortage of such a product (corn or oil products), the price increase has to be very large in order to reduce demand enough to get supply and demand back in balance.

Here is an excerpt from this post (Why Are Food & Fuel Prices Soaring?) that makes this point.  The following quote is from Harvard economics professor, Martin Feldstein [emphasis added] in a piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal:

Here is a simplified picture of what happened in the past year. The quantity of corn demanded by high-growth countries rose gradually, increasing eventually by an amount equal to, say, 10% of the previous total global level of corn consumption. Since the supply of corn did not increase, the price had to increase enough to reduce corn consumption in other countries by 10%. If it takes a 10% increase in the price to reduce the quantity of corn demanded in the first year by just 1%, it would take a 100% increase in the price of corn to offset the initial 10% rise in the quantity of corn demanded.

Yikes. A 100% increase for a food product such as corn seems outrageous, but if demand goes up, it takes a while for supply to catch up. After all, farmers can’t just pop out some more corn overnight. It takes an entire growing season. When it comes to oil, the process is similar. While producers such as Saudi Arabia can quickly ramp up production a bit, the development of new oil fields to implement large increases in production can take years. But, there is one advantage oil has over perishable commodities such as corn.

Feldstein continues:

…The situation for oil is more complex, but the outcome for prices is potentially more favorable.

Unlike perishable agricultural products, oil can be stored in the ground. So when will an owner of oil reduce production or increase inventories instead of selling his oil and converting the proceeds into investible cash? A simplified answer is that he will keep the oil in the ground if its price is expected to rise faster than the interest rate that could be earned on the money obtained from selling the oil. The actual price of oil may rise faster or slower than is expected, but the decision to sell (or hold) the oil depends on the expected price rise.

…If the price of oil is expected to rise faster, they’ll keep the oil in the ground. In contrast, if the price of oil is not expected to rise as fast as the rate of interest, the owners will extract more and invest the proceeds.

Expectations. Producers of oil are pretty rational and if they think the price of oil is going up quickly, then they might be tempted to hold off on production increases. But, expectations can work the other way too. If the high price reduces consumer demand for oil products enough, then producers will begin to forecast falling prices. As a result, they may want to ramp up production now before prices fall much further.

Feldstein continues:

The relationship between future and current oil prices implies that an expected change in the future price of oil will have an immediate impact on the current price of oil.

Thus, when oil producers concluded that the demand for oil in China and some other countries will grow more rapidly in future years than they had previously expected, they inferred that the future price of oil would be higher than they had previously believed. They responded by reducing supply and raising the spot price enough to bring the expected price rise back to its initial rate.

…Once this relation is understood, it is easy to see how news stories, rumors and industry reports can cause substantial fluctuations in current prices - all without anything happening to current demand or supply.

…Now here is the good news. Any policy that causes the expected future oil price to fall can cause the current price to fall, or to rise less than it would otherwise do. In other words, it is possible to bring down today’s price of oil with policies that will have their physical impact on oil demand or supply only in the future.

…Any steps that can be taken now to increase the future supply of oil, or reduce the future demand for oil in the U.S. or elsewhere, can therefore lead both to lower prices and increased consumption today.

When politicians say that we cannot drill our way out of the problem of high oil prices, they are clearly being disingenuous because, as Feldstein demonstrated, even a modest expected increase in the future supply of oil will have an immediate impact on prices today. Also, the current high price for oil will stimulate increased production naturally and it will also help reduce demand.  Both effects are already well under way.

This chart from the ITF indicates that global demand for oil is still likely to go up, but only modestly.  And, that increase comes largely from China which has recently reduced the level of subsidy for gasoline.  If subsidies in China were lifted completely, I suspect demand there would fall as well.  This chart from the ITF report indicates that demand in the U.S. has fallen dramatically as consumers, businesses, farmers and others have responded to high prices:

itf-interim-rpt-oil-oil-consumption-grwth.JPG

Source:  Interagency Task Force On Commodities

As we saw from the first chart, global production of oil has flatlined while demand has grown.  Now, with high prices, we are seeing a slowing in the rate of consumption or demand and we are also seeing new sources of oil coming on line. However, we know that demand and supply for oil will be tight for many years to come as existing oil fields slowly decline in production and worldwide demand continues to grow due to continuing economic growth.

I believe that we are on the verge of developing tremendous new sources of energy — solar, wind, clean nuclear — but, we’re at least 10 years away from deploying those sources in a meaningful way (see A New Strategy for Energy Independence — T. Boone Pickens).

Therefore, we need to continue developing oil and natural gas fields and we should pressure our political leaders to do just that.  Fortunately, politicians do know how to sense the public’s mood and they understand that support for increased development of oil and gas is soaring due to high prices.  As this chart indicates, support for increased drilling was only 35% in February and now it is up to 47% and no doubt will continue going higher as long as gas prices remain high.

cd-pew-research-energy.jpg

Source: Carpe Diem

There are forces opposing the development of new oil and gas, but I believe they are being shortsighted.  We can develop these resources in environmentally responsible ways and we need to do so now. Fortunately, some development is underway and that’s very good news:

Interior Department Opens 2.6 Million Acres For Oil Exploration (New York Times, July 17, 2008, Felicity Barringer)

The Interior Department on Wednesday made 2.6 million acres of potentially oil-rich territory in northern Alaska available for energy exploration. At the same time, it deferred for a decade any decision to open 600,000 acres of land north of Teshekpuk Lake that is the summer home of thousands of migrating caribou and millions of waterfowl.

The decision will open up for drilling much of the northeast section of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, holding an estimated 3.7 billion barrels of oil, Tom Lonnie, Alaska state director for the Bureau of Land Management, said in a conference call with reporters.

The northeast and northwest portions of the reserve could yield eight billion barrels of oil, he said.

Mr. Lonnie said he expected the first oil production to begin in the easternmost part of the reserve, west of the Colville River, from 2010 to 2012. A fully developed oil complex exists on state lands on the eastern banks of the river…

As we see, the supply of oil will be going up a bit as the new Alaskan fields come on line beginning in 2010.  And, we also have seen that demand for oil products has fallen due to higher prices.

Individually, these changes in supply and demand are not hugely meaningful.  But, millions of such decisions are being made each and every day.  Oil producers want to produce more to take advantage of higher prices.  Consumers want to use less because of high prices.  These forces — supply and demand — operate all the time.  As demand falls and supply increases, prices should stabilize.  Who knows, they might even continue the recent downward momentum.

I do hope they do not go down too much though.  That may sound contradictory, but I believe high prices for oil will stimulate the growth of alternative energy sources and, in the long run, that’s a good thing.  See Oil Prices — Too Low For Too Long.

ITF Report via:  Qando.net

« Prev - Next »