Posts Tagged ‘Real Estate’
Guest Post: Generation X: An Inconvenient Era
Thursday, 23 May 2013 10:09
No Comments

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

A data-based look at the financial context of the past 30 years from the perspective of Gen X.

 
I am honored to publish an insightful essay by longtime contributor Eric A. on the inconvenient financial era Generation X finds itself in. (Read more…) What sets this essay apart from most other generational analyses is its focus on data and charts.
 
(Eric's most recent essays here were A Brief History of Cycles and Time, Part 1 and Part 2.)
 
In The Brewing Generational Conflict (May 15, 2013), I mentioned the Cultural Monster Id (CMI) that arises whenever inter-generational emotions are freely expressed. Every generation– the Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y/Millennials–is slammed for its supposed character flaws.
 
Personally, I don't find much value in these outpourings of Cultural Monster Id, for several reasons. One is that generations do not naturally divide into crisp cohorts; people are shaped by the events and shifting myths/worldviews of their culture. As a result there is an inescapable arbitrariness to bright lines between generations. 
 
There's also a bit of intrinsic falsity in defining generational characteristics. Were the draftees of the Vietnam Era any less heroic than the draftees of World War II? Were the volunteers of World War II and Vietnam any more heroic than the volunteers of Desert Storm?
 
We can while away many a night around the campfire lambasting or lauding various supposedly generational traits, but I don't think that gets us anywhere useful. Ultimately, there is an element of luck in history, and it doesn't neatly favor generations evenly.
 
For example, the Silent Generation (born 1925-42) got stuck with a thankless war in Korea (1950-53), but was handed a golden opportunity to buy housing in the late 1960s before Boomer demand and geographical constraints sent it skyrocketing. Homes in high-demand areas purchased in the late 60s (before most Boomers could afford to buy a house) doubled in value in a few years and went on to rise 10 or even 15-fold in the ensuing 35 years.
 
Luck matters, timing matters, but so does context.
 
There are four Grand Narratives at work: demographics, resource extraction/pillaging, geopolitical conflict and the nature of the economy. The last two are heavily influenced by the first two; some studies suggest that large cohorts of unmarried, under-employed males are precursors to war, as political leaders channel that restless and potentially disruptive force against external enemies.
 
Economies based on endless resource extraction founder when the resources are found to be less than endless.
 
The Grand Narrative of the U.S. economy is a global empire that has substituted financialization for authentic, sustainable economic expansion. In shorthand, those people with capital and access to credit can take advantage of the many asset bubbles financialization inflates. They have a chance to do very well for themselves, if they have the presence of mind to exit the asset bubble before it deflates.
 
Those people who do not have capital or access to credit become poorer. That is the harsh reality of neofeudal, neocolonial financialization. Neofeudalism and the Neocolonial-Financialization Model (May 24, 2012)
 
Large cohorts generate their own self-referential feedback loops. A large cohort of home buyers drives up real estate as demand exceeds supply, and those who get in early are handsomely rewarded. Those seeking similar returns provide the fuel for further advances. This is the basic story of housing from 1970 to 2006 and the stock market from 1981-2013, as the Baby Boom cohort bought houses and saved for retirement via stock and bond mutual funds.
 
As the Boomer cohort sells its homes and stocks, supply will exceed demand and prices will decline, especially if household capital and access to credit are also declining. This selling cycle will also be self-reinforcing.
 
In my view, the reality Eric describes is part of the larger destructive narrative of financialization. Those people who are prepared for the inevitable collapse of the financialization era of debt, centralized manipulation and fantasy will do well for themselves and their families.
 
My position on the entitlements promised to the Baby Boomers has been clear since 2005 (Boomers, Prepare to Fall on Your Swords June 2005): demographics, the changing job market and the destructive consequence of financializing the U.S. economy render the entitlements promised (Social Security and Medicare) unpayable.
 
Here is Eric's essay:
 

Lately there has been some talk about Generation X and retirement.

“The typical Gen X couple, born between 1966 and 1975, only has enough savings to replace half of its pre-retirement earnings. Married Americans born during the first part of the baby boom, from 1946 to 1955, can expect to retire with about 82 percent of their income.” (Gen X Has New Reason to Resent Boomers as Retirement Looks Bleak).

The response from some circles has been that the net worth of GenX is half that of their parents because they’re slackers who blew the money. Really?

Setting aside how the Boomers have been the most spendthrift generation in American history, quadrupling personal household debt and doubling US Federal debt in a single lifetime, I’d like to focus on something much simpler: 6th grade math.

Financial people should easily recognize this chart:

This is your standard net worth chart, starting with an income of $20,000 at age 20 and increasing income by 3% a year to a pleasant $40,000/year at age 43. This person saved a standard 10% of their income, and invested at the standard 6%/year compounded.

Standard lifetime incomes have a tendency to rise from your 20s to your 50s and level off, so your real income-generating years are strongly back-loaded. This earnings chart from Canada is pretty standard:

As for 6% compounding markets, this is what portfolios from 1980-2000 looked like:

Wow, this investing stuff is easy! But we know what happened after that. The Dow has since gone sideways for a brutal 13 year Bear market:

Oh well, those are the breaks. Markets tend to have a periodicity that rise for >20 years, but then reverse or at least stall in a bear market for <20 p="" years.="">
So what does this have to do with GenX?

Everything. Investing is an exponential function. One of the interesting aspects of the exponential function is that interest compounds very slowly at first, then increasing the amount contributed by interest ever-faster as time goes on. This is why Brokers are adamant about people beginning to invest when they are young: no realistic level of interest can make up for the compounding effect of time. Here is the same assumption as above—3% income rise, 10% savings with 6% compounding — taken from age 20 to 65, halting peak income at a reasonable $55,000/year:

Note it takes 21 years to reach the first $100k, but only 8 to reach the $200k and 4 to reach $300k. This compounding-made-real actually happened from 1980-2000.
Here is a matrix of the 4 Generations:

Note anything on this chart? The Boomer generation had a rough start in the bear market of the 70’s, but were only about 25 when it ended, so the Bull run coinciding with 20 of their core income years. Very nice.

Quick look to the right and you’ll see GenX. When did they come into their equivalent earning years? Year 2000, just as the market was cut in half:

Why should that matter? The Dow has now recovered and gone to new highs of 14,000.
Well, let’s run the charts and see. Again assuming $20k starting income, 3% income growth, 10% savings, and full investment in the Dow as a proxy, let’s compare GenX income theory to reality:

Wow! Right at the 10-year compounding point in 2000, the X-er’s market clock was re-set to zero. Then in 2008, the next 10-year compounding point, they were re-set to zero again!

Remember what we said about compounding being strongly back-loaded? The difference in 6% compounding vs the market stalling at the critical 10 year mark has cut GenX net worth in half! And if this chart was inflation-adjusted their net worth would be another 30-50% lower!

This is even assuming the massively optimistic assumption that GenX incomes are neatly rising from $20k to $55k. They’re not:

What did the Bloomberg article say again, that GenX has half the retirement savings of their parents? That reality is exactly what we predicted given the math. Anybody want to argue about how Boomers worked hard to succeed but GenX and Y are slacking wastrels? Or does math trump all?

But okay, maybe despite advertising to the contrary GenX should have known better than to trust a 19 year-old bull market. Maybe they should have gone short. If so, when? Going short in 2001, they would have to have reversed and gone long in ’03, then short in ‘08, then long in ’09, and possibly short again sometime soon? Is asking a whole generation to pick 5 exact tops and bottoms reasonable? Perhaps not. If not, where should they have put their money?

Bonds? Interest has averaged under 3% since 2000:

The chart of 3% vs 6% interest: a 25% difference over 10 years:

Maybe they should have invested in houses. Here’s your table of average buying ages:

Severely burned by stocks, GenX statistically became first-time homebuyers at the age of 32, not much older than when their parents did. However, they bought their first home in 2005, not 1985. How did that work out?

Whoops! Sorry, suckers, stole your money again: your peak home-buying years coincided with another bubble! Housing was no safe-haven. Not only that, but again, the catastrophe is not the up-front losses but the 10 years of lost compounding that can never be re-made. The math says that if GenX worked until they were 80, they will NEVER recover.

But there is only one national economy, all the same houses, same stocks, same companies: to some extent it’s not a matter of national wealth, but the DISTRIBUTION of wealth in the nation. So if GenX was systematically disenfranchised by engineered stock and housing bubbles plus low interest rates, who was their expected slice of GDP transferred to?

Again:

That’s right, the Boomers, in allegiance with the financial elite, engineered a transfer of all other generations’ income to themselves. This, plus being born in an expanding demographic, was the totality of their investing genius.

Why should anyone protest this observation? What do you think the decades-old phrase “the national debt has enslaved our children” means? It means that the Boomers, who were in power at that time, took all the wealth of the nation for themselves and left their children with the bill.

That’s not a surprise, it’s well-known fact that has been approved of by everyone in power for 20 years. I’ve been hearing it openly stated since before the National Commission on Social Security in 1983. When I was 13, my national parents said that I would pay their debts so they could get wealthy at my expense, and they have fully kept their promise. Now I am 43 and not only had the $80,000 of my net worth systematically stolen, but being unable to outvote them, have been saddled against my will with the $50,000/person of the national debt. An estimate of $130,000 per person has been transferred. From us, GenX and Y, to them. And with 10,000 Boomers a day retiring and a 1:1 worker to recipient ratio, they expect much, much more.

So think again before you so easily dismiss the 25% unemployment rate and 3rd-world incomes of Generations X and Y and start with a short lesson on the problems of exponential functions.

Yet this terrible math leaves the question of what's next? Can this unequal state of affairs remain a permanent feature of American life? Can the work of one group– the very hours of their life–be morally claimed and transferred to another by dictate? That is to say, does one generation have the right to enslave another, whether physically with chains they never earned, or financially with debts they never accrued? And if this transfer was voted into power by a generation and enforced by government dictate, why can’t Generation X and Y vote to transfer all the Boomers’ wealth back to themselves?

We don’t know at this time, but with the Dow at all-time highs it would seem that, one way or another, incomes and prices can only revert to the mean. And brother, speaking from the bottom, it’s a long way down to here.

 

    



 
Europe’s Quantitative Easing
Thursday, 23 May 2013 07:57
No Comments

Submitted by Mark J. Grant, author of Out of the Box,

Most people do not think that Europe engages in Quantitative Easing. They know that the United States engages in it, that Britain engages in it and now that Japan engages in it but they think that Europe has so far refused to be involved. They think this because this is what they have been told. (Read more…) Unfortunately this is inaccurate.
 
The European Quantitative Easing takes place every day just not in the manner utilized by America and others. However, it takes place all the same and it is done in a manner to circumvent the rules of the European Union. This is also why the ECB has such a massive balance sheet.
 
What Europe has done is gotten around their own regulations which forbid the ECB from lending money directly to nations. This is supposed to be handled by the ESM and approved by the various parliaments. Since this is either politically impossible in some countries or politically a nightmare in others the ECB has concocted a scheme to bypass the political rules with all of Europe’s politicians blinking and nodding in silent agreement.
 
In Spain, as one example, the ECB lent the banks $172 billion. This was done by the country of Spain guaranteeing the debt of the banks and various bank securitizations and then the bank debt and the bank securitizations were pledged to the ECB who handed them back the cash. The money, in large part, has been used to buy the debt of Spain which, in fact, hands the sovereign back the cash. A good trick, an interesting ruse which is the major reason, perhaps the only reason, why the yield of Spain’s debt has declined.
 
In Greece, as another example, the same game has gone on. Not only does the EU not count contingent liabilities as part of a country’s debt to GDP ratio, where Greece has guaranteed the debt of their banks, but no inclusion is made of the money handed to the sovereign as a result of assets pledged at the ECB and funneled back to the sovereign nation. One more good trick!
 
Another ploy is what has happened in Belgium and various other countries.  Dexia got into trouble and Belgium, France and Luxembourg had to step up and lend the bank money. However it was not called a loan or termed a loan and was marked on their balance sheet as an “investment” so it actually increased the assets of the various countries as any proper categorization, a “loan,” would have raised their debt to GDP ratios. Magic abounds in Europe.
 
In fact all over Europe, in almost all of the countries, the ECB has accepted bank debt and corporate debt guaranteed by some nation and handed back cash to the banks that can either loan money to the sovereign or buy their debt in the open market when auctioned.
 
There is much ballyhoo that sovereign yields have gone lower because of the better economics in Europe. Europe is in a major recession. Even an idiot savant would not take this notion at face value and yet that is what is contended. The truth is that yields have gone lower because the ECB hands the banks money which is utilized to force them lower. The banks are just a conduit in this scheme; nothing more.
 
Now the ECB holds about 80% of their assets at face value declaring them “risk free.” This is another part of the farce because the banks get the money at the “risk free” rate of 100% of the loan or securitization. These securitizations include mortgages, commercial loans, construction loans, gyro stands in Athens and only God and perhaps Mr. Draghi and his band of merry men knowing what else is in them.
 
Make no mistake; Europe is fully engaged in Quantitative Easing.
 
There are rumors, snippets in the wind, that one or more of the French banks has gotten into trouble. Each time, perhaps, loans were securitized and handed to the ECB which handed cash bank to the bank or banks. It is impossible to know but with a banking system four times the size of the GDP of the nation it would not surprise me to find that certain items had been incorrectly categorized if not covered up.
 
Then let’s play out this scheme to its logical conclusion. The loans in the securitization do not pay. Bankrupt companies, Real Estate that has gone south, construction that has stopped and there is no ability to pay from the primary sources. Then what? More securitizations pledged, more cash handed out to the banks and new loans pay old loans and the scheme continues. The singular hope here is for growth and when none commences very bad things could happen.
 
‘Tis but a mid-summers night’s dream
Crafted by some clever bard
A pleasant slumber upon a balmy day
Pray tell what happens when the dreamer awakens?

    



 
What Has Happened So Far
Thursday, 23 May 2013 06:21
No Comments

Once again: The FOMC minutes had nothing to do with overnight’s events, especially since both Ben Bernanke and Bill Dudley made it very clear previously that for any tapering to occur (and which is supposedly bullish according to David Tepper, who may finally be done selling to momentum chasers) if ever, the economy would have to be be stronger (which is of course a paradox because it is the Fed’s QE that is making the economy weaker). If anything, the minutes reminded us that there is a mutiny in the FOMC with finally someone having the guts to say on the record that Bernanke is blowing a bubble – something never seen before on the official FOMC record. And after all, the Nikkei opened way up, not down. It was only after the realization of what (Read more…) bond yields mean for, wait for it, stocks (despite central planner promises that it is soaring bond yields that are a good thing – turns out, they aren’t) that the sell-off really started. That, and of course copper, and the end of the Chinese Copper Financing Deals arrangement that has been China’s illicit cross-asset rehypothecation scheme for years (more shortly). So in a nutshell, here is what has transpired so far, courtesy of Bloomberg.

  • Treasuries higher as global stock markets fell on concerns over rising interest rates in wake of Bernanke’s testimony yday and evidence that China’s economy may be slowing.
  • Japan’s Topix index fell almost 7%, the most since the aftermath of the March 2011 tsunami and nuclear disaster; financial firms slid amid rising bond yields
  • 10Y JGB yields erased earlier losses as stocks fell  after yields touched 1%, the highest in a year
  • UST domestic trading volumes were highest in 5yrs yday, FTN’s Jim Vogel wrote. 10Y yield rose as high as 2.062%, highest since March 14; TY traded 3m contracts yday, busiest day for 1st contract on record, according to Bloomberg data to 1982
  • Economy Minister Amari said there’s no reason to be concerned over stock market decline, economic recovery on track
  • China’s HSBC flash manufacturing PMI stood at 49.6 for May, contracting for 1st time in 7 mos. and adding to signs of slowing economic growth in 2Q
  • Bond buying should respond to economic data, Fed’s Bullard said in speech in London; Fed should “continue with the present quantitative easing program, adjusting the rate of purchases appropriately in view of incoming data on both real economic performance and inflation”
  • The euro area’s manufacturing PMI for May rose to 47.8, services to 47.5; composite index at 47.7, est. 47.2; Germany’s manufacturing PMI 49.8
  • U.K. GDP +0.3% in 1Q, confirming initial estimate, on inventories, consumer spending; exports declined sharply in quarter
  • Surge in Japanese bond yields since early April would push up Prime Minister Abe’s budget bill by about $3 billion, a possibility that’s prompting central bank Governor Haruhiko Kuroda to pledge more focus on curbing debt-market swings * Deutsche Bank AG, continental Europe’s biggest bank, said some investors are probably underestimating the ramifications of the European debt crisis and a political stalemate over the U.S. debt ceiling
  • Bond investors don’t perceive the six biggest U.S. banks as “too big to fail,” according to a report from one of those lenders, Goldman Sachs
  • U.S. bankers and insurers are trying to use trade deals, which can trump existing legislation, to weaken parts of the Dodd-Frank Act designed to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis
  • China will tighten rules on bond sales by polluters, local government financing vehicles with higher debt levels and companies in industries with overcapacity as the  government seeks to redirect the economy
  • BofAML Corporate Master Index OAS steady at 141bps, tight for year, as $14.05b priced. Markit IG at 71.6bps, YTD low 69bps. High Yield Master II OAS tightened  to 427bps from 435bps; $1.59b priced yesterday. CDX High Yield fell to 106.63 from 107.13
  • Sovereign yields mixed; euro-area peripheral yields higher; core G-4 yields lower. Asian stocks fell across the board; European stocks, U.S. stock-index futures lower. WTI crude, metals lower, gold gains 1.4%

And SocGen’s recap:

The 7.3% collapse in the Nikkei and the sharp intra-day volatility
yesterday in bonds and currencies shows the formidable task facing the
Fed (and other central banks) as they prepare to take the first steps of
ending the policy of extreme accommodation. A tapering of asset
purchases is by no means a tightening in policy, but the wild reaction
to the faintest indication that the Fed is preparing to start dialling
back, possibly as soon as September, demonstrates how tricky it will be
for policymakers to wean markets off liquidity without causing a tremor.
However, Bernanke in his prepared remarks could not have been clearer
yesterday: he is in no hurry to change monetary policy. While he
acknowledged afterwards that the pace of asset purchases may slow over
the next few meetings, the Fed Chairman was unequivocal that so far,
economic indicators and fiscal considerations do not yet make that an
option. The job market’s recovery does not yet make it an option. He
clearly does not want a change in monetary policy to push up interest
rates and endanger the real estate market’s recovery. Today, we will be
watching the initial claims and new home sales data.

In
the short term, pro-risk strategies are likely to be favoured still but
the days of remorseless gains may well be numbered for stocks after the
drubbing for the Nikkei. A
possible change of tack by the Fed and a simultaneous weakening in
China will spur further profit taking, ending a blistering rally.
USD/JPY hit 103.45 yesterday but the subsequent pull back overnight
shows the JPY still has its admirers when risk goes in reverse.

The
EUR/USD trend is more muddied. In the euro zone, the manufacturing and
services PMI indices announced today will give us some more information
on the outlook for activity in Q2, but the focus will be on the speech
by ECB president Draghi. We are hoping that the string of unpleasant
surprises will slow, giving some modest support to EUR/USD. Support runs
at 1.2797 and 1.2775. The trend in US 10-year bond yields should
dictate the path as illustrated in our chart.

Across the
Channel, will the downward pressure on EUR/GBP resume as UK growth
outpaces that of the euro zone, or will EUR/GBP get caught up in the
woes affecting other EUR exchange rates? We still prefer fading
short-term gains.