SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: mishedlo who wrote (31519)5/19/2005 7:45:19 AM
From: Crimson GhostRespond to of 306849
 
US housing bubble spreads
Andrew Ward | Bloomberg
2005/05/19
From Jackson, Mississippi, and Wichita, Kansas, to Rockford, Illinois, and Green Bay, Wisconsin, housing prices are rising at more than three times the rate of inflation.
This is increasingly worrying to economists such as Dean Baker, co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington group that analyses public policy. The US was in a housing bubble that couldn't last, he said.
"We may be seeing the bubble spreading" from the east and west coasts to inland areas, Mr Baker said. "People are buying homes every day and paying much more than they'll be able to sell them for."
Median home prices rose more than 10 per cent in 66 of 136 US metropolitan areas over the past year, the National Association of Realtors said. That's the most cities with gains of more than 10 per cent in 25years of record keeping.
Home prices have surged in New York, Los Angeles and Washington and in coastal towns in the south and west as mortgage rates have fallen to near-record lows. The three fastest-rising markets were in Bradenton, Sarasota and West Palm Beach, Florida, where prices rose by 36 per cent to 46 per cent from a year earlier.
The trend is spreading. Prices rose 16 per cent in Jackson, 14per cent in Rockford, 12 per cent in Wichita and 10 per cent in Green Bay. All four cities had bigger gains than a year earlier. Unemployment in each of the cities is higher than the US rate of 5.2 per cent.
"It is unusual that we are starting to see big price gains inland because there is a lot of land," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at US consulting company Economy.com. "You generally only see these kinds of price gains and speculation in markets that are supply constrained."
He said the US wasn't in a national housing bubble, although some markets in California, Florida and the north-east were. The median price of a previously owned home rose 23per cent in Washington, 21per cent in LA and 18 per cent in New York in the past year.
"If there are more Wichitas experiencing these price gains a year from now, this would be more of a national problem," he said. "With each passing day and each percentage point hike in house prices, the risks rise."
The median price of a previously owned home rose 9.7 per cent to $US188,800 nationwide in the first quarter compared with a year earlier, the association said. The US consumer price index rose 3.1 per cent over that period.
In Rockford, fewer houses on the market and competition from buyers in nearby Chicago helped raise prices, said Lee Nalewanski, the managing broker at Starck & Co, a real estate company in Palatine, Illinois.
"A year ago, in April 2004, the average sale price was $US118,000 and now it's almost $US135,000," the broker said. "Everybody's asking the same thing: how long can this train keep going?"
Employers in the Rockford metropolitan area cut 9400 jobs between March 2001 and March 2005, as the area lost a fifth of its manufacturing jobs. Rockford's unemployment rate was 6.1 per cent in March.
"In our area, we are starting to see some affordability issues," Mr Nalewanski said. "Even though the price increases haven't been that big, we've had a decline in salaries due to the exodus of manufacturing jobs and their replacement with service jobs."
Economists such as Mr Baker said the US was in the midst of a housing bubble that might burst and push the country into recession. "People are betting on the value of their homes rising, and they're not saving," he said. "This is a classic bubble."
The US personal savings rate fell to 0.4 per cent in March compared with the 4.8 per cent average of the past 30 years.
The fallout from the collapse of a housing price bubble would hurt consumer spending, which makes up 70 per cent of the US economy, he said.
"A lot of people are going to find themselves a lot poorer than they expected," he said.



To: mishedlo who wrote (31519)5/19/2005 10:57:48 AM
From: shadowmanRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 306849
 
Probably this?

Alan is great when it comes to CYA statements.

May 19, 2005
Greenspan Again Pushes for Restrictions on Mortgage Giants
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:42 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan again pushed for limits on the multibillion-dollar mortgage holdings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying such restrictions would not hurt the thriving housing market.

Greenspan, who has been pressing Congress to limit the holdings of the two mortgage giants, warned on Thursday that their debt poses a risk to U.S. financial markets.

As Fannie and Freddie grow ever larger, their ability ''to quickly correct a misjudgment in their complex hedging strategies becomes more difficult,'' Greenspan said. ''We are thus highly dependent on the risk managers at Fannie and Freddie to do everything right.''

Greenspan's remarks, made to a housing conference in Atlanta, echoed similar comments he has made in the past and appeared to have no effect on the companies' stock prices. Shares of Fannie Mae fell 61 cents to $57.11 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange, while Freddie Mac's shares rose 20 cents to $64.53.

Congress is exploring various proposals to rein in Fannie Mae, the No. 1 U.S. buyer of home mortgages, and its rival, Freddie Mac, which ranks as the second-largest buyer. They were created by Congress to inject money into the home-loan market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages and bundle them into securities for sale to investors worldwide.

At the end of 1990, Fannie's and Freddie's combined portfolios amounted to $132 billion, Greenspan said. By 2003, their combined holdings came to $1.5 trillion.

''The assets required for Fannie and Freddie to achieve their mission are but a small fraction of the current level of their assets,'' Greenspan said. Thus if Congress were to limit the two companies' holdings so that they can achieve their mission, a substantial liquidation would be required over time, the Fed chief said.

He said this could be done fairly smoothly, without disruptions to the housing market. ''The implementation of portfolio limits should pose no significant difficulties,'' Greenspan said.

Unwinding some of Fannie's and Freddie's holdings would not raise mortgage rates for homeowners because so many big banks and other lenders compete with them in the home-loan market, he said.

Greenspan said the Fed also sees little evidence to support the notion that the availability of fixed-rate mortgages is tied to the size of Fannie's and Freddie's portfolios. He also said it is ''difficult to see'' how the two companies' portfolios can influence home ownership.

Much of the increase in home ownership seen in recent years seems to be due to growing incomes of households and generally low borrowing costs, he said.

''Without the needed restrictions on the size of (Fannie's and Freddie's) balance sheets, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for housing,'' he said.

Federal regulators last year accused Fannie Mae of serious accounting problems. It was ordered to restate earnings back to 2001, a correction that could reach an estimated $11 billion. The accounting fiasco, which partly involved how derivatives were accounted for, led to the ouster of the company's chief executive and top financial officer.

Freddie Mac had its own accounting debacle in 2003, which also involved how derivatives were accounted for, and three top executives were forced out. It had misstated earnings by $5 billion for 2000-2002.

nytimes.com