114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 06:26 pm
@Builder,
That article I provided on home prices was produced by CNNMoney. It's your problem if you don't have any respect for them.

As for the US recovery mirage, I'd rather be in the US rather than anyplace else on this planet - especially here in Silicon Valley where they are hiring more workers.

I love this mirage, our stock funds are at new highs, and our home prices are continually increasing.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 07:42 pm
@Builder,
I normally don't use data that is 3 months old to tell me what the current economy is..

Today's date - 9/27
the date of your story on the economy 6/20
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 08:45 pm
@Builder,
Your article from the Guardian is dated July 2012; and it speaks about the US economy. Not only is that article outdated, but the fact that the GOP has been cutting government jobs is what they are reporting on.

From UPI.
Quote:
Business News
U.S. has added more jobs than thought
Published: Sept. 27, 2012 at 6:59 PM

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 (UPI) -- The U.S. economy added 386,000 more jobs than previously estimated between April 2011 and March 2012, the Labor Department said Thursday.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said it had initially undercounted job growth, and the latest report indicates BLS preliminary job reports during the period were underreported by an average of 32,000 jobs per month, The Hill said.

The development means President Barack Obama may now claim the economy had a net gain of jobs since he took office in January 2009, Forbes reported.


Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2012/09/27/US-has-added-more-jobs-than-thought/UPI-32581348786781/#ixzz27jEebnDc
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 09:00 pm
@parados,
No mention that CI's link is from July 27, 2011 ?

Nice tagteam effort, parados.

by John Lounsbury on September 19, 2012

in Stock Market Investing

The announcement of a third round of quantitative easing (QE3) and the massive Federal Reserve commitment to buy RMBS Residential Mortgage backed securities for the indefinite future buoyed stock markets. Few sectors were pushed up more than the SPDR Homebuilders ETF (NYSE: XHB).

While the S&P 500 saw a gain from lows on Thursday, September 13, to highs on Friday of 2.65 percent, XHB soared by more than 6.5 percent. Expectations seemed to have been ignited for a new housing boom.

As passions cooled, XHB came back to earth and the market in general cooled down. The S&P 500 index closed on Tuesday, September 18, up 1.59 percent from the close the previous Wednesday and XHB was up 1.41 percent.

This all happened for good reason.

Why QE3 Won’t Matter Much

The QE3 program announced by the Fed last week promises to buy $40 billion of RMBS a month for the indefinite future. An undisclosed fraction of this is expected to be new securities consisting of newly issued mortgages, with the idea that the housing market can be advanced further into recovery.

This idea has a fatal flaw.

The banks have been unable to process nearly half of the mortgage mods they should have under the Housing Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), according to a study by a top research team comprised of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and four professors from leading universities.

If the banks fell 800,000 mortgage mods short over three years (that’s more than 20,000 per month), how could they manage to write 40,000 to 80,000 new mortgages a month under QE3?

More than 40,000 mortgages per month would be needed if one-fourth of QE3 went to new mortgages with an average loan value of $250,000.

However, aside from the logistics barriers discussed, several other factors inhibit home sales, as I explain below.

Underwater Mortgages

A big headwind comes from the 10.8 million homeowners currently underwater on their mortgages. Some of these would ordinarily be in the market to sell and buy another home, but can’t afford to sell their current home.

An additional 2.3 million homeowners have within 5 percent of the balance remaining on their mortgage. Because seller costs can range between 5 percent and 6 percent, many of these are similarly inhibited from selling to buy another home. That puts about 13 million homeowners in the equity trap that will make selling and buying a new home difficult.

A 2009 study by Paul Emrath at HousingEconomics.com found that the average time homebuyers remain in a home is around 15 years. The potential per year for reduced home sales from this source is therefore 867,000. If we arbitrarily assign a 0.7 factor to the potential total, we come up with an estimate of 600,000 a year not buying a home because they are under water on their current mortgage.

Note: The adjustment factor assumes that 30 percent of those underwater will find a way to sell and move without destroying their credit and/or down payment needed to buy another home, perhaps too high an expectation.

Credit Destroyed by Foreclosures

There have been 4.4 million completed foreclosures (bank repossessions) from 2007 through the end of 2011 (Statistic Brain*). Virtually all of these former homeowners are not eligible to buy another home because of credit impairment.

If we use the same 15-year normalizing factor as above, that indicates another 300,000 who otherwise would have been buying a home each year. As time moves forward, early foreclosures will disappear from the credit record and those foreclosed in 2007 and 2008 will become eligible to get another mortgage, provided their credit is otherwise good.

As soon as the million or so foreclosure completion rate of the last three years starts to decline significantly, the 300,000 number will start to decline. That is not likely to change for at least a couple more years.

Reduced Household Formation

According to a research paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, the average net new household formation rate from 1997 to 2007 was around 1.5 million. For 2008-2011, the average was approximately 500,000. The accumulated deficit in new households is now about 2.5 million and is expected to continue to grow this year with an expected 1 million new households formed in 2012.

It is reasonable to assume that this represents a future demand overhang that will come into play when there has been sufficient economic recovery. This is not likely until employment recovers to more normal levels.

In the meantime, it’s reasonable to assume an estimated shortfall of 500,000 per year, at least for 2012 and 2013. The same Cleveland Fed paper gives an average home ownership rate for those under 35 at about 40 percent, so we can add 200,000 a year home buyer shortfall per year from this source, assuming that the under 35 age group dominates the population contributing to the new household formation shortfall.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 09:30 pm
@Builder,
Translate that to what effect that has on our economy?

Do you understand anything about macro-economics? The housing sector is showing improvement. Our economy is not based solely on housing.

More info please?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 08:12 am
@Builder,
Your article was in response to a statement about the economic data today. That makes the date relevant.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 04:39 pm
@parados,
DAVID ROSENBERG: The Housing Recovery Is Doubtful, And Even If It Is Real It Won't Help The Economy


"I won’t quibble with the view that housing is recovering. But as the charts below reveal, when you look at starts and sales from a big picture standpoint, this recovery is very feeble. And the S&P homebuilding stocks are trading where they were in October 2007 when housing starts were 1.3 million units (SAAR) and May 2003 when starts were 1.75 million — versus the sub-750K they sit at today."

Source: Gluskin Sheff, September 17, 2012

"Be that as it may, it is the low end of the market that is driving sales as the median price fell 2.1% MoM in July, down now in four of the past five months. Year-over-year, the median price is also down 2.5% and has been in negative terrain for two months in a row. In the meantime, the average price slipped 1.4% sequentially, having fallen for three months in a row, and declined 2.6% on a YoY basis."

Source: Gluskin Sheff, August 24, 2012

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/david-rosenberg-us-housing-market-2012-9?op=1#ixzz27ii6MKM5


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/david-rosenberg-us-housing-market-2012-9?op=1#ixzz27ihijfku
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 05:12 pm
@Builder,
What Mr Rosenberg misses are his expectations that our economy is going to return to pre-2007 level growth. His ability to analyze the economy through housing just proves he doesn't understand much about macro-economics.

Most areas of the country are showing slow but sure improvements in the housing market; higher prices and building of more housing where demand is increasing.

It's at a point where rents are competing with buyers dollars; and at current interest rates, and qualifications, most people are deciding to buy over renting.

Most workers savings and debts are in better shape, simply because the stock market has regained most of the losses from 2008. Consumer confidence is up, and spending on cars are growing.

Forget Rosenberg; he's a naysayer without much understanding of macro-economics.

BTW, even if the stock market drops by 500-points, most of us will still remain in the positive for this year. The "new norm" is that the current unemployment rate is going to remain the same for many years to come.

That's the drag that will keep our GDP growth below 2%/year.

reasoning logic
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 06:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,

Quote:
What Mr Rosenberg misses are his expectations that our economy is going to return to pre-2007 level growth. His ability to analyze the economy through housing just proves he doesn't understand much about macro-economics.



Quote:
Forget Rosenberg; he's a naysayer without much understanding of macro-economics.


I have researched a little about Mr Rosenberg and I was hoping that I could research a little about you, "not that you are wrong but I have an interest in the education that people bring to the table. I do not see an institutional education all that important as long as the person who has studied has at least studied the work of those who hold the degrees that the institutions have given to others.

Rosenberg received both a Bachelor of Arts and Masters of Arts degree in
Economics from the University of Toronto. Prior to joining Gluskin Sheff in 2009, Rosenberg was Chief North American Economist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch in New York and prior thereto, he was a Senior Economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns and Bank of Nova Scotia. From 2001 to 2008, Mr. Rosenberg was ranked first in economics in the Brendan Wood International Survey for Canada, ranked second overall in the 2008 Institutional Investors Survey for the U.S., and was on the Institutional Investor All American All Star Team from 2005-2008. Rosenberg also ranked 4th out of 104 economists in the 2009 Thomson-Extel survey of global portfolio managers.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/david-rosenberg#ixzz27oWzcTZG
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 06:52 pm
@reasoning logic,
All the positions that Mr Rosenberg held are impressive, but I'm interested in what he wrote about our economy based on "housing," vs my thesis on the subject. Titles and education are somewhat misleading when most expert economists can't agree on some major issues concerning the economy. Not only that but many of those so-called experts have gotten their banks and financial institutions into trouble.

What's important is how our current thesis matches future performance.

I'll leave it in your ballpark to figure out. Call me in about four years.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 06:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Titles and education are somewhat misleading when most expert economists can't agree on some major issues concerning the economy.


Yes I do agree and that there in itself says a lot.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2012 12:07 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Titles and education are somewhat misleading when most expert economists can't agree on some major issues concerning the economy.


Yes I do agree and that there in itself says a lot.


all evidence is that economists actually base their calls on readings from the wigi board. You will have to excuse the delusional CI, a man who still believes the propaganda that there is science there somewhere.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2012 12:12 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Most areas of the country are showing slow but sure improvements in the housing market


to flesh that out some: four years after the banking system froze up creating a crash, three years into the alleged recovery, home values are only down 30% from peak versus the previous 34%

It's PARTY TIME! Drunk
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2012 12:15 am
@hawkeye10,
Different areas are having different levels of success. Most of the improvements seems to be in the coast cities and the north.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2012 12:23 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Different areas are having different levels of success. Most of the improvements seems to be in the coast cities and the north.


i am sorry...did you fail to notice the thread tittle is "Where is the US economy headed"?
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2012 12:53 am
@hawkeye10,
You might have to provide some evidence of that, hawkeye10. Very Happy

Yaaaaawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnn.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2012 09:29 am
@Builder,
I second that!
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2012 10:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Language warning. Election material.

http://youtu.be/hDTT1yRNsFE
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2012 11:13 pm
@Builder,
That's already "old."
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2012 12:32 am
@cicerone imposter,
You mean it's gone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMwmqp3GLMc
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/31/2025 at 05:51:43