Archive for the ‘Real Estate Investments’ Category
Construction defects
Took a “day trip” to Marina del Ray, California, yesterday to speak at HB Litigation Conference’s Construction Defects conference. It was very well attended, with a great cross-section of attorneys and experts on this complex topic. I was the only valuation expert on the panel, and spoke about the variety of challenged converting physical defects to market value determinations.
One of the really interesting issues arising now is in the area of “green buildings”. Insurers, contractors, and the attorneys who feed and care for them, are apoplectic over the vision of courtroom battles a few years from now over what was SUPPOSED to be a “green building” that turned out to be “not-so-green”. The industry has entered into a new realm. While there are plenty of prescriptive standards (LEED, Energystar, etc.) these standards do not take on the same level of codification of building codes, nor is there the same level of inspection and certification associated with building permits. Hence, a property PROPOSED as “green” may not actually turn out to be “green”, or at least the same shade of “green” that the investors were promised. When that happens, litigation ensues.
Share this:
The death of the fixed rate mortgage
It might also be called the “death of the easy mortgage”, and will almost certainly be the death of the small-town lender….
The Obama Administration today outlined the broad-stroke strategy for dealing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They suggest three solutions, all of which basically call for a multi-year wind-down of the two troubled institutions, which have cost taxpayers about $150 Billion in recent years to bail out.
How we got this way has been covered in thousands of articles, blog posts, and even text books. FNMA and FHLMC were set up to provide liquidity to small mortgage lenders (primarily, small-town S&L’s, of which there aren’t many now-a-days). A small-town S&L had a fairly finite pool of deposits, and once they made a few home loans (which were very long in duration), they simply couldn’t loan anymore until those mortgages were paid-off. Worse still, in times of rapidly changing interest rates, low-rate, fixed-rate mortgages didn’t get paid off, but depositors ran for higher-rate money funds. S&L’s were caught in a liquidity trap, and crisis after crisis ensued.
Today, of course, the mortgage lending business is filled with several thosand-pound gorillas with names like Wells Fargo, BofA, and JPMorgan/Chase. These institutions have the muscle to package mortgage pools and sell them off to investors. Why, then, do we have/need FNMA and FHLMC?
Congress is firmly on the hook for this one. Over the past decade and a half, the F’s were encouraged by Congress to morph into investors of last resort for mortgages that the securities market didn’t want. (It was actually a lot more complicated than that, but you get the general picture, right?) Why didn’t the private sector want these mortgages? Because they knew eventually many of them would go bad — and they did. Congress essentially got what it wanted, a subsidy of home ownership which, unfortunately, wasn’t sustainable.
This deal isn’t done yet, of course. Wait for the long-knives to come out from the Realtors and Home Builder’s lobbies. The current proposal would privatize all housing lending with the exception of FHA/VA lending. To put this in a bit of perspective, today, FHA loans constitute over 50% of housing lending. Back in the “hey-day” of the liquidity run-up, FHA loans were down around 4%. Without the F’s, we’re looking at a privatized mortgage market not far different from what we see out there right now, and that’s fairly unsustainable for the homebuilding industry.
Share this:
Housing equilibrium — part 2
My meanderings on housing equilibrium are about to become even more muddled, in a way, and clearer in others.
To wit… in the middle of the just-past decade, before the market started melting down, it was already apparent to researchers that the housing market looked decidedly different than it had before. It was clear that prior to about 1994, the homeownership rate had hovered around 64% for many years. Why, then, did it apparently take-off to higher ground and make a nearly non-stop upward run from then until about 2004?
The “run up” was the topic of a great paper by Matthew Chamber, Carlos Garriga, and Don Schlagenhauf of the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank, produced as part of their working paper series in September, 2007. For a copy of it, go here.
Their focus was on the “run-up”. Our focus today is on the “run-down”. In short, if they can explain why ownership rates ballooned up in the past decade, then perhaps we’ll have some idea of how far down they will drop in the coming decade.
They find that as much as 70% of the change in homeownership rates can be explained by new mortgage products which came on the market during that period. “Easy money”, which is how this has been described in the press, made homeownership possible for millions of new owners. The remainder of the changes, in their study, are explained by demographic shifts.
There is some intuitive logic in all of this (as there usually is, ex-post, in good empirics). The American population got a bit older during the period in question, as the baby-boomers came into their own and also into an age bracket when homeownership makes a lot of estate and tax planning sense. Since these demographic shifts are still with us, and indeed continue to move in ownership-positive directions, it would suggest that a new equilibrium will probably fall out somewhere higher than the old one.
As of the most recent American Housing Survey, the current homeownership rate in America is 66.7% (down from 69.8% at the peak a few years ago). During the 80’s and 90’s (the boom which followed the 80’s recession), the rates held nearly constant at 64%. The FRB-Atlanta study thus suggests a new equilibrium somewhere between 64% and 66.7% (where we are today). In fact, if you concur that 70% of the boom came from mortgage products (which are no longer available) and the remainder from factors which ARE still at play, then one might surmise that the new equilibrium is close at hand.
Share this:
Housing equilibrium — part 1
This is going to be a bit convoluted, so bear with me.
This week, I’ve been at Renaissance Weekend, an annual gathering of top minds in a variety of fields (Nobel laureates, authors, actors, CEOs, etc) and I’ve been asked to make several presentations on real estate finance and economics. It’s a pretty heady experience, but more on that later.
One of the principle questions thrown my directions is, ‘When will real estate bottom?’ One might argue that commercial real estate has already bottomed, and there’s a fair amount of data to support that. (A weak “bottom”, I’ll grant you, but a bottom, none-the-less.) Apartments are coming back particularly strong, but even hotels and industrial are showing positive gains this year.
Owner-occupied residential is a completely different story. We’ve really never had a phenomenon like this, and according to both the Federal Housing Finance Authority and Case-Shiller, housing prices continue to collapse all across the country. Indeed, C-S just released a report two days ago indicating that new lows were hit in 6 out of 20 top markets. Overall, housing prices have been downtrending every quarter since mid-2007.
When will this bottom? I’m toying with a set of models which suggest that the pricing market won’t bottom until the ownership rate reaches an equilibrium. Heuristically, that optimal rate appears to be around 64%. Why? I’m looking at the last time ownership rates ballooned, which was at the end of the hyper-inflation period of the late 1970’s. Pricing markets stabilized after the ownership rates stabilized.
This posting is a deviation from my normal routine — My thinking on this topic is evolving, and I’m hoping to trace that evolution here on the blog until I reach something that I can actually flesh out into a paper. I’d appreciate any comments you have, either added as a comment here on the blog or, if you’d like privacy, e-mail them directly to me (john@greenfieldadvisors.com)
Share this:
Conway-Pedersen
If you’re in business in Western Washington (as we are), then the quarterly Puget Sound Economic Forecaster by Dick Conway and Doug Pedersen is must-reading. The latest issue just hit my desk, and given the current state of flux, it’s worth reviewing.
You have to get to the back page to find what I consider to be the most interesting graphic — a chart of Puget Sound Leading Economic Indicators dating back to the early 1970’s. The era is marked with 5 recessionary periods — 1974, the “hic-cup” recessions of 1979-1982 and 1990-1992, the “9/11” recession (which really started in late 2000) and the current mess, which dates to 2007. Intriguingly, in each of these periods, the index turns downward well before the beginning of the recession. Of more interest, the index turns upward well before the end of the recession (as it has now) and turns into a sustained multi-year period of growth which carries it to a new peak. If you’re a chartist (as I am) this is interesting stuff.
C & P note that the Puget Sound region — despite its famed economic health — actually had a somewhat worse time than the nation as a whole during this recession. We lost 7.4% of our jobs during this period, compared with 6% for the U.S. They suggest this means that the region will trail the nation as a whole coming out of the recession. I concur with them that the region lost disproportionately in construction and finance.
Share this:
Tis the season….
Intriguing mixed messages from the economy. Employment continues to lag, but holiday shopping was up. Go figure?
Two or three things may be in store. First, I’m sure that some of the more profitable businesses, fearing future tax increases, were holding off spending tax-deductable money until 2011 rather than 2010. The key lesson for lawmakers — get some stability and predictability into the tax system.
Second, while “on-line” shopping went up, the unmeasured impact of on-line was the ability to target shopping. Lots of holiday shopping went at bargain prices, and I’m interested to see how much sustainability there will be in the increases. It’s very difficult to imagine, with the underlying instability in economic fundamentals, just how long the shopping bubble can be sustained.
But, on to real estate. What looks good right about now? What looks bad? We continue to be doom-sayers on housing construction into 2011. Normally, in a recession, there’s a build-up of excess supply (construction in the pipeline pre-recession get unsold DURING the recession). However, past recessions rarely have a contemporaneous melt-down in homeownership rates (see the following).
Note that since we began keeping records in 1960, ownership rates have inexorably trended upward but for two instances — this one and the 1980-84 period. After 1984, it took until the mid-1990’s for rates to start trending upward again, and many would suggest that this up-trend was only the result of Greenspan’s “easy money” policies. In a more cautious lending environment, it’s hard to say where the true equilibrium might lie. However, it’s intriguing that the run-up in the 1970’s is often blamed on the high levels of inflation (making home ownership the favored “inflation hedge” for families) and that in the post-recession, low-inflation period of the late 80’s and early 90’s, rates seemed to hover around 64%.
If in fact that’s where the equilibrium lies, then the U.S. has about three more percentage points in owner-occupied homes to absorb. This absorption occurs in one of three ways — growth in the population, conversion of homes to other uses (usually rental in lower-end or transitional neighborhoods), or demolition. Whatever the reason, with the current slope of the trend-line (which, intriguingly, matches the slope of the 1980-84 period), we see that it took about 5 years (2004 through 2009) to get from about 69% to about 67%. At this rate, getting to 64% will take another 7 – 8 years, suggesting a best case scenario of stability in the 2016 range.
This scenario, interestingly enough, matches some of the employment-growth scenarios I’ve seen, which suggest we’re looking at the mid-to-late teens for unemployment to get back down to pre-recession levels.
So, if owner-occupied housing stinks, what looks good on the menu? Apartments. In very rough numbers, we WERE building about 1.5 million homes per year prior to the recession (year-in, year-out, with a HUGE amount of variance from year to year). Now-a-days, we’re building about a third of that or less, suggesting an un-met demand for housing of about a million units per year, more or less. Apartment construction also flat-lined during the recession, primarily because banks simply didn’t have the money to lend for construction financing. (Permanent money comes from other sources, and it’s available, but the construction financing problem is still with us.)
As credit continues to ease — particularly with the recent announcements by the FED in that regard — we can see some strong lights at the end of that tunnel. Good news for construction workers — their unemployment rates have been huge lately, but the same folks who drive nails for owner-occupied homes can also drive nails in apartment complexes. Easing credit in this area will thus fuel job growth, which also fuels consumption, home purchases, etc. Thus, addressing the housing demand/supply problem may be the most important single thing policy makers can do to restore the economy to good health.
Share this:
Post Thanksgiving, time to go back to work…
In past years (say, pre-2008), the Thanksgiving thru New Years period at Greenfield was always slow, as clients and projects seemed to hunker down for the holiday season. Naturally, 2008 was an aberration on a number of levels — the real estate let-down was in full force, and while our business flow was down, we were busy “hunkering down” for what we projected would be a long recession trough.
Last year (2009) was unpredictable. The first half of the year was dreary, but the last half was a rebuilding period for us, as has been 2010. We’re not yet where we want to be (that is to say, back on our pre-recession growth curve), but the accumulations of lessons-learned have put us in a great position for the future.
I’m commenting on our specific experience at Greenfield for a reason. I think our own company experiences are emblematic of what is happening at tens of thousands of other businesses across the U.S. and other countries, and has significant implications for the future of real estate, the economy, and finance for the next few years. I’m always reluctant to get into the prediction business (I’ll leave that up to Faith Popcorn and her ilk), but I can make a few generalizations, particularly as the parallel what I saw back in the 1970’s —
1. Business profits (and valuations — as we see from the stock market) are headed upward, not so much from increased sales (flat across the board) but also thru extraordinarily increased efficiency. One might wonder, if firms are so doggone efficient today, why weren’t they acting efficiently a few years ago? Simply put, “efficient” firms don’t grow very well. Growth usually requires a significant degree of wastage. Hewlett Packard was famous for this — they would budget engineers a certain amount of time and support to just tinker with things, knowing that the sort of Edison-esque profitability that came out of such tinkering. At one time, Xerox was so inventive that they thru away lots of great ideas, the Graphical User Interface being the best known example. Additionally, efficient firms cut wa-a-a-a-a-y back on hiring, training, and marketing. We see this now on college campuses, as new graduates (even in the “vocational” schools like business and engineering) are getting no offers or offers far beneath what their big brothers and big sisters got a few years ago.
2. This “hunkering down” not only cuts the demand for commercial real estate, but also means we may have a substantial excess supply of offices, warehouses, and shopping centers for some time to come. Ironically, business travel is coming back (as executives work harder to sell the same amount as before) but everyone is going “down” a notch on the hotel food chain — executives who used to stay at a Ritz Carleton are now at Marriotts, and former Marriott customers are now at Courtyard Marriotts. (Intriguingly, the Marriott organization is highly vertically integrated, and so actually takes great advantage of this phenomenon). The interesting off-shoot is that while aggregate hotel room counts are up, hotel employment lags (as customers move from “full-service” to “limited service” stays). The same is true with hotel restaurants, as dining-out budgets get slashed.
3. The “trainee” employment picture is worsening in some ways, but may actually improve in others. As noted, new graduates are having real problems getting placed, and are having to accept entry-level jobs far below expectations. I spoke with a young woman recently who graduated in 2010 in Finance. She had great grades and a stellar resume, and fully expected to get an entry-level job commensurate with her expectations. Guess what? No one is hiring. After several frustrating months, she accepted a job as a teller at a Credit Union at about half the starting salary she’d previously expected. Is there a silver lining in this? Yes, two. From the business’ perspective, they’re getting entry-level talent at bargain basement prices, and if they’re willing to mentor and foster these kids, they’ve got talent who will have a much greater familiarity with the nuts-and-bolts of the business once expansion does return. From the “hiree’s” perspective, a foot in the door builds experience and puts her at the starting gate ahead of the rest of the pack.
4. The early 1980’s recession was actually the last of a series dating back to the late 1960’s (the period was called “stag-flation”). While the early-80’s recession was the worst of the bunch, it seemed to have wrung the last of the “bad stuff” out of the economy, and set the stage for two decades of nearly continuous growth. Many credit the pro-business agenda of the Reagan Administration, but that ignores the tremendous pent-up inventiveness which had been waiting for an opportunity. Gates, Allen, Jobs, and Wozniak had been tinkering with computers and software for a decade, but needed a business expansion to really get themselves going. Sam Walton had great ideas about merchandising, but the explosive growth of WalMart depended in no small part on the availability of cheap construction and development credit to build mega-stores at seemingly every street corner. We decry the sloppiness of the mortgage market of the past few years, but no one seems to complain about the millions of construction workers and realtors who rode from apprenticeship to retirement on the wave of the housing boom. Recessions do not last forever, although this one does have the symptoms of lasting for a while longer. When 4% GDP growth returns (and remember, folks, that’s really all it takes), we should be poised for a period of expansion not-unlike the one that started in the mid-1980’s.
Well, folks, that’s really it. Like most of you, I have a lot to be thankful for. I live in a fairly free country, with an economy that considers 9% unemployment and 2% GDP growth to be unacceptable. I get the opportunity to interface with students and young folks on a daily basis, and they constantly refresh my positive outlook for the future.
Share this:
October 10 — Update #2
Since my last post, I also had the privilege of attending (and speaking) at the semi-annual meeting of the Real Estate Counseling Group of America (RECGA). RECGA is a small but highly influential group, founded in the 1970’s by the great real estate valuation leader, Dr. Bill Kinnard, and over the years has counted in its membership many of the presidents of the Appraisal Institute and other leading groups, editors of several of the top real estate journals, noted professors and highly influential authors in the field.
The Fall meeting was held in Washington, DC, and the core of the meeting was Friday’s educational session. Max Ramsland opened up with a presentation demonstrating the impact of the number of anchor tenants on the appropriate cap rate of shopping centers. Carl Shultz, a member of the Appraisal Standards Board, followed with a discussion of impending changes to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). These changes are currently discussed in an Exposure Draft, which he invited RECGA members to revieww and submit comments about, and will be incorporated (with appropriate changes) in the 2012 edition of USPAP. Both Mr. Ramsland and Mr. Shultz are also RECGA members.
Two non-members followed with somewhat related presentations on eminent domain. Scott Bullock from the Institute for Justice was one of the attorneys who argued the famed Kelo case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and he discussed the status of eminent domain law since that landmark case. With a somewhat different perspective, we heard from Andrew Goldfrank, a U.S. Justice Department attorney who heads up all Federal takings litigation.
The afternoon session kicked off with David Lenhoff, a RECGA member and former editor of the Appraisal Journal, who discussed the complex issues surrounding hotel valuation. I followed with a brief synopsis on the Gulf Oil Spill, focusing on the current status of the claims and litigation processes. Reeves Lukens, a RECGA member, and his son, Tripp Lukens, discussed the state of pharmaceutical properties in the U.S. Joe Magdziarz, who is the incoming president of the Appraisal Institute (AI) discussed the current issues facing that organization, with a particularly emphasis on the recent controversies between AI and the Appraisal Foundation (AF). Notably, the founding Chair of AF, Jeff Fisher, is a RECGA member and was able to provide some historic commentary. RECGA members Jeff Fisher and Ron Donahue brought the day to a conclusions with discussions about the state of the securitized real estate market, including REITs.
For more information about RECGA, visit the web site, www.recga.com.
Share this:
October 10 — Update #1
It’s a rainy Sunday here in the ‘burbs of the Emerald City, and I have a LITTLE bit of time to catch up on things. First thingie on my mind is the somewhat back-page article in many newspapers recently about Bank of America forstalling the foreclosure process until they get the legality of certain title problems straightened out. The Washington Post syndicate had a pretty good article by Brady Dennis and Ariana Eunjung Cha on Thursday that was carried widely, including by our local Seattle Times and the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Recall that home ownership and mortgage lending (or specifically, the act of pledging a home as collateral in a lending transaction) is LEGALLY a state-governed issues. The Federal government regulates banking and the lending process, but the actual pledging of a home (or any real estate, for that matter) is strictly a state issue (subject, of course, to certain Federal oversight.) Thus, if a nationwide lender like Bank of America (or Countrywide, which it bought) wants to make loans across the U.S., it still has to get permission in each and every state in which it does business, and the lending process needs to be tailored to each state’s peculiar laws.
As it happens, property ownership had a somewhat different emphasis from one state to the next. In South Carolina, where I used to live (and for that matter, in about half the states), foreclosing on a home is a very difficult process. The lender has to go to court and prove that the mortgage is in default, and further prove that the lender has the right to foreclose. In those states, the foreclosure process simply cannot proceed without a judge’s orders. In other states (my current home of Washington, for example), the process is much easier and does not require a judge.
The distinction is less important than the fact that there is a variance in processes among the states. When you are BofA (or Wells, or Chase, or any big lender), you want to bundle the loans together and sell them as pools. The pool actually WANTS loans from different parts of the country, to benefit from diversification. To facilitate this, and to make mortgage pools fungible and tradeable, the various lenders started subscribing to a service about 10 years ago called the Mortgage Electronic Registry Service (MERS), in Reston, VA. MERS separates the “real estate pledge” (that’s what the mortgage actually is) from the promissory note (which is what investors actually want to buy). In theory, MERS wouldn’t be an issue in an individual loan unless that loan went into foreclosure.
Now, in any given mortgage pool, even in GOOD years, a few of the loans will go into foreclosure. Fortunately enough, in “good” years, there are enough foreclosure buyers out there to keep the mortgage pool solvent, and no one really cares if every “i” wasn’t dotted and every “t” wasn’t crossed in the process.
But… sigh… these are anything but normal or GOOD times, and apparently bankers are churning ou the foreclosure doc’s so fast they’re getting carpel-tunnel from filling out paperwork. Guess what? If the mortgages were made slopily in the first place (as many were), and if the mortgage-note bifurcation was handled too rapidly (as most apparently were) and if the foreclosure applications are coming out of the bank like a firehose, then… well, remember that about half of the states require a judge to sign off on each and every foreclosure, right? And judges just HATE sloppy paperwork, right?
With THAT in mind, the foreclosure process is quickly grinding to a halt. In some states, the courts have ruled that MERS does not have a valid standing to initiate foreclosure proceedings. Class action suits have been filed in California and Nevada, no doubt with more to follow. The nightmare scenario for banks is that not only are foreclosures invalid because of sloppy paperwork (let’s don’t forget the sloppy underwriting that got us in this mess in the first place) but also one might argue that any foreclosure initiated in the past 10 years is also invalid. Thus, if you lost your house at the leading edge of this mess, two years ago, assuming the statute of limitations is still in effect, you may have a case.
Sadly, the vast majority of these foreclosurse are probably valid, albeit that may be difficult to substantiate with the sloppy paperwork. Homeowners who can’t make their payments anymore need closure so they can move on with their lives. Lenders (and mortgage pool investors) need to get assets redeployed. Neighborhoods with boarded up homes need families living in those homes again, whether they are homeowners (who frequently buy “fixer-upper” foreclosures) or renters. The system is not served at all by dragging this process out.
On the other hand, we constantly teach students that one of the strengths of the western economy is the rule of law. Contracts mean something, and badly drawn or poorly executed contracts cannot have the same legal standing as good ones. To allow such in the name of expediency puts us pretty far down the slippery slope.
I’ll be following this story. This is a complicated story, and newspapers, sadly, end up putting complex stuff on the back pages. This issue, however, deserves some front page attention.
EDIT #1 —
Since I wrote this, Foxnews.com published a very good synopsis of the problem.
Share this:
the 11 day week
It’s been 11 days since my last post… long week, eh?
The litigation support portion of our business has been hogging my calendar most of this month. I’ve had 5 days of deposition in two different cases (plus cross-country travel, prep, etc.) in the past 11 days. Yes, that’s every bit as busy as it sounds. The month isn’t over — I have two more dep’s scheduled for May (both, thankfully, in Seattle) and then two the first week in June (both, thanks to the Gods of calendars, in New Orleans).
As if that wasn’t enough, the BP Oil Spill matter is on my calendar each and every day. We’re in daily communications with law firms in the Gulf states and elsewhere, and we’re working on a methodology white-paper for distribution later this month. There is a CLE conference scheduled for Atlanta in June — Greenfield will have some-sort of presence. More on that in the next couple of days. If you’d like a copy of the white paper when it’s published, please drop us a note at info@greenfieldadvisors.com
Of course, the real estate advisory and investment side of our business continues to be a busy place. Sigh… It’s nice to be busy.
From a small northwestern observatory... 