The Housing Chronicles Blog: Fortune magazine
Showing posts with label Fortune magazine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fortune magazine. Show all posts

Friday, September 21, 2012

September column for Builder & Developer magazine now online

My column for the September issue of Builder & Developer magazine is now posted online.

For this issue, entitled "The Rise of the Single-Person Household," I had read an interesting article in Fortune magazine about the demographic changes in the U.S. and the generational rise of single-person households.  What does that mean for our industry? An excerpt:

According to the most recent Census Bureau statistics, just 51% of adults today are married, putting singles within shouting distance of becoming a majority cohort.  Moreover, 28% of the country’s households now include just one person, which has doubled since 1960 and is the highest in U.S. history.  And this trend isn’t just confined to the U.S. – single-person households account for 50% of the total in cities like London and Paris and even higher (60%) in Stockholm...

Of course singles also buy homes, and that is attracting the attention of both brokers and builders.  Today, single households buy one-third of homes and, according to the NAR, unmarried men and women account for 10% and 21% of all buyers.  Interestingly, despite their higher incomes, men in their thirties and early forties show little interest in buying a home, while women increasingly look to homeownership as a way to graduate to the next life stage of total independence. Then, and only then, will many of them even consider partnering up with a significant other...

To read the entire column, click here.

To read the entire September 2012 issue in digital format, click here.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Is the nascent housing recovery a mirage?

If you work in the building industry, after you've had plenty of time to take up new hobbies and interests in the face of the housing bust, it's easy to start hoping for the eventual recovery. But is it too soon to think that the current 'green shoots' we're seeing in the housing market will have legs? A story in Fortune asks the question:

Shares of Toll Brothers (TOL), Hovnanian (HOV) and KB Home (KBH) and other builders have surged. The exchange-traded fund that tracks the group has nearly doubled since March.

Home starts have risen for five straight months, while sales of new homes recently hit their highest level since last September. Prices are up as well: the Case-Shiller index of national house prices rose 2.9% in the second quarter, ending a three-year decline.

These signs -- as well as anecdotal reports about house shoppers growing more willing to write a deposit check -- have executives at homebuilding firms declaring the worst is over...

But housing boosters have forecast turnarounds repeatedly since the market peaked in 2006, only to be proved wrong by plunging prices. And skeptics say they're wrong again now.

They argue that a deeply indebted consumer, a weak job market, expiring incentives and rising foreclosures spell a quick end to any housing rebound...

Click here for full story.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Is there a VAT in our future?

Worried about the rising federal debt? You should be, because even after the current stimulus plan has passed, future spending on entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare will continue to far exceed revenues. Since increasing income taxes on those making over $250,000 (and even below) will still not be enough to close the gap, some experts from both the left and right portions of the political spectrum are suggested that the U.S. might soon have the type of VAT tax that's long been standard in Europe. From a Fortune story:

The bill is far too big for only the rich to pick up. There aren't enough of them. America will have to lean on citizens far below the $250,000 income threshold: nurses, electricians, secretaries, and factory workers. Within a decade the average household that pays income tax will owe the equivalent of $155,000 in federal debt, about $90,000 more than last year. What the Obama administration isn't telling Americans is that the only practical solution is a giant tax increase aimed squarely at the middle class. The alternative, big cuts in spending, aren't part of the President's agenda...

The most likely levy: a European-style value-added tax (VAT) that would substantially raise the price of everything from autos to restaurant meals...

What will shock America into action is the prospect of fiscal collapse, which will grow more vivid each year. In 2008 federal borrowing accounted for 41% of GDP, about the postwar average. By 2019 the burden will double to 82% by the CBO's reckoning, reaching $17.3 trillion, nearly triple last year's level. By that point $1 of every six the U.S. spends will go to interest, compared with one in 12 last year. The U.S. trajectory points to the area that medieval maps labeled "Here Lie Dragons." After 2019 the debt rises with no ceiling in sight, according to all major forecasts, driven by the growth of interest and entitlements. The Government Accountability Office estimates that if current policies continue, interest will absorb 30% of all revenues by 2040 and entitlements will consume the rest, leaving nothing for defense, education, or veterans' benefits...

A VAT...would tax such a giant pool of purchases that a relatively low rate of 10% to 15% could generate the revenues needed to pay for Obama's agenda and balance the budget. The VAT, which would be imposed like a federal sales tax, is paid along the chain of production by wholesalers and retailers. The cost is passed to consumers in the form of higher prices. For the Democrats, the problem with the VAT is that it falls heavily on the middle class and low earners, who use a far higher portion of their incomes to buy things than the rich do. Some of the sting can be removed by exempting food and clothing from the VAT or sending rebates to lower-income households. But the middle class would be a big target in any event...

Click here for entire story
.

Friday, May 8, 2009

A return of homebuilding stocks?

Although it may still seem way too early to call for a rebound in housing stocks, a writer for Fortune magazine argues that there are some early signs that *some* homebuilders might be worth a look. From the article:

Is it finally time to buy homebuilder stocks? The basic math of the real estate market is now working in favor of an industry that, believe it or not, has done a remarkable job paring costs and harboring its financial strength for the recovery that's now dawning.

The two main bellwethers for housing's future - the supply/demand equation and affordability - are both pointing towards a recovery. The timing is impossible to predict, though the best guess is that home sales will stage a resurgence beginning late this year or in early 2010...

Fundamental demand is driven by household formation, which in turn depends on two factors: the rate of immigration and the number of Americans entering the labor market. Distilling all the data, the Congressional Budget Office reckons that new households can absorb around 1.5 million new houses, condos and rental units a year...

Since the number of new homes and apartments now isn't nearly big enough to accommodate the immigrants and young workers crowding the labor force, residents are buying and renting the existing units (albeit at a slow pace). That's driven the excess inventory down to less than 900,000 units. At the present slow pace of homebuilding, the glut will disappear by the end of 2009.

The other force behind the housing rebound: Call it the "New Affordability." According to the most recent Case/Shiller data, prices in many of the bubble markets have fallen at least 40% from their peaks. The declines are drawing people out of rental and into the home-buying market...

D.R. Horton (DHI, Fortune 500) America's biggest homebuilder specializes in the market's sweet spot: starter homes for first time homebuyers. Those customers don't need to sell their existing home to buy one of Horton's - they typically move straight from a rental...

Toll Brothers (TOL) At first glance, Toll would seem an unlikely pick since it specializes in mass-produced, luxury market of homes at $600,000 and up. But the stock is selling at a substantial discount to its peers (based on price-to-book-value)...

Meritage Homes (MTH) Meritage derives half its sales from Texas, one of the fastest growing states in the country. It's shrewdly changing its specialty from almost $300,000 send-and-third move up homes to starter houses priced at around $200,000...

Friday, April 24, 2009

Will we be seeing more consolidation of homebuilders?

When the news of the Pulte-Centex merger broke recently, it was a surprise for most of us (still) eeking out a living in the building industry mostly because it occurred so early in this part of the cycle, but for me it also brought up two big questions: (a) would this put more pressure on other public builders to merge; and (b) what, exactly, was Pulte getting for its investment? Will this simply mean even more lookalike homes in major markets? A story in Fortune magazine ponders these same questions:

Large, well-capitalized homebuilders with low debt, such as D.R. Horton Inc., (DHI, Fortune 500) KB Home (KBH), and Pulte (PHM, Fortune 500) - as well as cash-flush private equity firms - will likely be shopping around, while highly leveraged builders with significant chunks of debt coming due in the next three years are likely targets, industry experts say.

Like companies in just about every other industry, homebuilders are having a tough time refinancing in the frozen credit markets. As a result, distressed builders, unable to meet debt calls, could be forced to sell assets or the entire company at bargain-basement prices.

Builders with debt-to-market cap ratios above 75% include Beazer Homes USA Inc. (BZH), Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. (HOV), and Standard Pacific Corp. (SPF), according to Bob Curran, managing director at Fitch Ratings. Their high debt makes them vulnerable to takeouts if the credit markets don't improve in the next two years, experts say...

KB Home could fit well with Ryland Group Inc. (RYL) which shares a similar market cap and business strategy, says UBS analyst David Goldberg. But, he notes, "Who knows if KB wants to be acquisitive?"...

Most industry experts believe consolidation will accelerate, but many wonder if Pulte might have jumped in prematurely and overpaid for Centex (CTX, Fortune 500).

"We have always felt that there would be additional consolidation in the industry - just not right yet," said Joe Snider, vice president and senior credit officer at Moody's Investors Service in New York. "We're in the middle - we're not at the end yet - of a very deep and long-lasting downturn."

Based on Pulte's closing price on April 7 just before the deal was unveiled, the transaction valued Centex at $10.50 a share, which represented a 38% premium to its closing price of $7.62.

"My gut would tell me that what Pulte paid was a little bit high," says Goldberg. If the market rebounds and prices go up, "Pulte will look like geniuses for buying a big land position at the bottom of the market," he says. But if the market tanks for two or three more years, he believes the merger will be viewed as ill-timed...

Analysts expect a number of distressed builders to exit the market through bankruptcy filings, mergers or fire-sales in the next year or two.

So far, about 17 of the country's top 100 homebuilders - including three publicly-traded builders - Levitt & Sons LLC, WCI Communities Inc., and Tousa Inc. - have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection over the past two years, says Reichardt. More recently, Comstock Homebuilding Cos. Inc. indicated it may seek bankruptcy protection

Publicly-traded builders, in general, are better capitalized than their rivals in the private sector. Many learned tough lessons from the crippling downturn almost 20 years ago where high debt and inventory levels pushed a flurry of builders into bankruptcy...

Still, many companies are at risk. "Some of the weaker public builders have already gone, and there may be more to go," says Kim. And that's where the well-capitalized players can step in, but they may be best suited to hold off a while longer...

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Can former eBay CEO Meg Whitman save California?

I've always been a fan of eBay -- I've used to sell cars for my family, bought out-of-print sheet music and a studio-quality keyboard, so it's interesting that former CEO Meg Whitman, who has also worked with Bain & Co., Disney and Hasbro, has thrown her hat into the ring to run such an unwieldy state. Many voters have grown apoplectic with Governor Schwarzenegger, who has broken many promises but has basically said, "I can't run again for anything, so what are you gonna do?" So what would she do differently? From a Fortune magazine article:

One reinvention is California, which is more critical to the recovery of the U.S. economy than any other state. Twelve percent of Americans live here. Ten percent of Fortune 500 companies have headquarters here. California's GDP, at $1.8 trillion, makes it the eighth-largest economy in the world. In the past year more people have lost jobs here than in any other state. More homes have gone into foreclosure. More banks have failed. And as Whitman notes, businesses are moving out at an alarming rate, most often citing excessive regulation and intolerable taxes. For top earners, California's taxes are the highest in the U.S. And to what end? California's credit rating is the lowest in the nation.

The other reinvention is the businesswoman who wants to be CEO of the state. Meg Whitman, 52, wasn't born in California - she's from New York's Long Island, and went to Princeton and to Harvard Business School. But she has spent almost half her adult life here. She worked for Disney in strategic planning in the '80s, moved back East, and then returned in 1998 to become CEO of a tiny e-commerce startup. With her big-business knowledge base (from stints at Bain & Co., Procter & Gamble, and Hasbro), she built eBay from 30 employees and $4.7 million in revenue to 15,000 employees and almost $8 billion in revenue.

Her experience growing a large organization and coming to know some of the company's 300 million registered users - 12 million in California alone - fortified her belief that "less government is simply better," she says. She's appalled that California has nearly doubled state spending during the decade through 2008. And she abhors the new budget that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a fellow Republican and a tarnished model of reinvention himself, muscled through the Democrat-controlled legislature a few weeks ago.

A deal had to get done because California was broke and overdue on $2.8 billion in taxpayer refunds and payments to state contractors. But the new budget that Schwarzenegger signed imposes $12.5 billion in tax increases and $5.4 billion in additional borrowing, along with $15.7 billion in spending cuts...

As for Schwarzenegger, he took office in 2003 after voters recalled Gov. Gray Davis and won reelection in 2006, but he can't run in 2010 because of term limits. His public-approval ratings have tumbled to 38% as he's lost favor mainly with his own Republican Party.

The flailing GOP isn't likely to help Whitman if she makes it past the primary (California's voters are 31% Republican, 44% Democrat). The general election would involve Democratic heavyweights in an era when the party's brand is riding high. The rival nominee could be San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, or attorney general Jerry Brown, an energetic campaigner who was governor from 1975 to 1983. Brown displays a mix of ridicule and respect when he describes candidate Meg's positioning this way: "'I ran a business. I can buy my campaign. I have zero experience in government. I want to take on the most difficult state government job in America. Therefore, make me governor.' That's her campaign....

Click here for full article.

Monday, March 2, 2009

Who are the most admired home builders?

Although the current state of the housing market makes it an odd time to be declaring the 'most admired home builders,' for the second year in a row, Fortune magazine compiled their list of 'most admired' companies based on input from businesspeople in all types of industries. Number 1 across all industries? A tech-related company called Apple, followed by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway.

In the home building sector, KBHome took top honors, followed very closely by Toll Brothers, which specializes in luxury housing. According to the press release issued by KBHome (which is helpful because it was hard to find on the Fortune Web site), the survey methodology was as follows:

FORTUNE’s survey partners at Hay Group, a global management consulting firm, started with some 1,400 companies: the FORTUNE 1,000—the 1,000 largest U.S. companies ranked by revenue; non-U.S. companies in FORTUNE’s Global 500 database with revenues of $10 billion or more; and the top foreign companies operating in the U.S. They then sorted the companies by industry and selected the 15 largest for each international industry and the ten largest for each U.S. industry.

The survey covers 64 industries: 25 international industries and 39 primarily U.S.-market industries. To create the 64 industry lists, Hay Group asked executives, directors, and analysts to rate companies in their own industry on nine criteria, from investment value to social responsibility. This year only the best are listed: a company’s score must rank in the top half of its industry survey.

In other words, if a builder isn't listed below, then 'better luck next year!'

Following are the Top 5 'most admired' as well as the next 'contenders.'

Most Admired
Company Industry Overall score
1 KB Home 6.58
2 Toll Brothers 6.53
3 Centex 6.24
4 Pulte Homes 6.06
5 NVR 5.71


Contenders
Company Industry Overall score
6 D.R. Horton 5.09
7 Ryland Group 4.89
8 Lennar 4.70
9 Hovnanian Enterprises 3.84
10 Standard Pacific 3.45

Finally, Fortune also compiled a list of 'least admired' companies in various sectors, which you can find here.

The survey will be published in the March 16 edition of Fortune magazine.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Fortune magazine talks to 8 prognosicators

Dow 4000? Food shortages? A bubble in Treasury bills? Welcome to 2009, courtesy of 8 different visions of economists/analysts/businesspersons opining in Fortune magazine:

Nouriel Roubini

Known as Dr. Doom, the NYU economics professor saw the mortgage-related meltdown coming.

We are in the middle of a very severe recession that's going to continue through all of 2009 - the worst U.S. recession in the past 50 years. It's the bursting of a huge leveraged-up credit bubble. There's no going back, and there is no bottom to it. It was excessive in everything from subprime to prime, from credit cards to student loans, from corporate bonds to muni bonds. You name it. And it's all reversing right now in a very, very massive way. At this point it's not just a U.S. recession. All of the advanced economies are at the beginning of a hard landing. And emerging markets, beginning with China, are in a severe slowdown. So we're having a global recession and it's becoming worse...

Bill Gross

The founder of bond giant Pimco warned of a subprime contagion back in July 2007.

While 2008 will probably be best known as the year that global stock markets had their values cut in half, it was really much, much more. It was a year in which every major asset class - stocks, real estate, commodities, even high-yield bonds - suffered significant double-digit percentage losses, resulting in the destruction of over $30 trillion of paper wealth. To blame this on subprime mortgages alone would be to dismiss an era of leveraging that encompassed derivative structures of all types, embodying a belief that economic growth was always and everywhere a certainty and that asset prices never go down. As 2008 nears its conclusion, we as an investor nation have been forced to face a new reality. Wall Street and Main Street are fearful that a recession may be replaced by a near depression...

Robert Shiller

The Yale professor and co-founder of MacroMarkets called both the dot-com and housing bubbles.

We don't currently have anywhere near the level of unemployment that we had in the 1930s, but otherwise there are many similarities between today's environment and the Great Depression, with things happening today that we haven't seen since then. First of all, there's the magnitude of the stock market's move up and down. The real (inflation-corrected) value of the S&P 500 nearly tripled from 1995 to 2000, and by November 2008 was down nearly 60% from its 2000 peak. The only other comparable event was the one in the 1920s where real stock prices more than tripled from 1924 to 1929 and then fell 80% from 1929 to 1932. Second, we've had the biggest housing bust since the Depression. Third, we've seen 0% interest rates. We've actually seen briefly negative short-term interest rates. That hasn't happened since 1941. There was a period from 1938 to 1941 when we were bouncing around at zero and sometimes negative, but that hasn't happened since...

Sheila Bair

The FDIC chairman has been pushing to get mortgage relief for borrowers.

My 87-year-old mother is a native Kansan who grew up in the throes of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. She is a classic "buy and hold" investor who would make Warren Buffett proud. Her investment returns always exceeded those of my father, to his eternal consternation. He actively traded his stocks and produced decent returns, but nothing like those my mother achieved by simply buying stocks of companies she understood and liked, and then holding onto them...

Jim Rogers

The commodities guru predicted two years ago that the credit bubble would devastate Wall Street.

We are in a period of forced liquidation, which has happened only eight or nine times in the past 150 years. The fact that it's historic doesn't make it any more fun, of course. But it is a pretty interesting time when there is forced selling of everything with no regard for facts or fundamentals at all. Historically, the way you make money in times like these is that you find things where the fundamentals are unimpaired. The fundamentals of GM are impaired. The fundamentals of Citigroup are impaired...

John Train

The author and chairman of Montrose Advisors has 50 years of Wall Street experience.

I presume that although we are in a severe recession it will not decompose into a full-scale depression, because that is what everyone is afraid of and desperate to avoid. Wall Street likes to say that the market has anticipated five of the last three recessions - the point being that a market crash frightens the authorities into taking necessary action.

Keynes observed that pragmatic businessmen often could not imagine that they were the slaves of defunct economists, but ironically, never is this more true than today of Keynes himself. So we run a huge deficit to postpone the worst. That means inflation, so bonds are unsatisfactory...

Meredith Whitney

The Oppenheimer & Co. analyst was among the first to warn that the big banks had big problems.

What the federal government has done so far- with TARP, bailing out Citigroup, etc. - has stemmed the bleeding, but what it hasn't done is fundamentally alter the landscape. Yes, there's been a tremendous amount of capital thrown into the system, but my concern is that it's just going to plug the holes. It's not going to create new liquidity, which is what the system so desperately needs...

Wilbur Ross

The billionaire chairman of W.L. Ross & Co. specializes in turning around troubled companies.

We are clearly in a serious recession, and more aggressive action is needed to turn things around. The federal government initially underestimated the scale of the mortgage and housing crises and later panicked into an ever-changing series of ad hoc measures that at best dealt with some of the effects of the original crises. But homeowners have now lost $5 trillion, and 12 million families have mortgages in excess of the value of their homes. Therefore the economy will not stabilize until mortgages are adjusted down to the value of homes, with affordable payment schedules, and until new mortgages become available across the home-price spectrum. Till then, the poverty effect of falling house prices and unemployment moving up toward 7% will hold consumer spending back from its former 70% contribution to our economy.

Saturday, July 5, 2008

On the path to a housing rebound?

It's easy these days to get depressed about the news of falling home prices, sales and rising foreclosures, but Fortune editor Shawn Tully thinks it's also the sign of something different -- the seeds of a housing rebound in a very comprehensive article:

The news that housing starts have fallen to their lowest level in 17 years sounds like one more reason to be depressed about the shrinking value of your home. In fact, it's an almost certain sign that the path to a housing recovery is finally in sight.

If prices are going to stabilize, let alone rebound, the United States needs to produce far more first-time home buyers than new houses...

Builders constructed far more homes from 2002 until 2006 - the peak bubble years - than could possibly be absorbed by the normal growth in households.

As a result, the market is now swamped with one million new and existing homes for sale that aren't occupied, and hence need to sell quickly. That's a multiple of the figure in most downturns, and it testifies to the duration and girth of the bubble...

The massive overhang of unsold inventory has remained stubbornly high. Sure, builders cut back, but sales dropped just as quickly.

Now that excess supply is finally beginning to shrink. In April, the number of new homes for sale stood at 456,000 according to the U.S. Commerce Department, still a big number, but 93,000 below the mountainous figure a year ago...

The key player in any recovery scenario is the first time buyer. The housing market operates with a pronounced laddering or ripple effect. When entry-level buyers flood the market, they not only stimulate production of new homes, they purchase existing homes. Those purchases, in turn, allow the sellers to move up to bigger houses.

But when the first-timers are absent, the entire buying chain gets frozen.

Today, newbies are coming back. Why? For the first time in years, entry-level homes are affordable. Builders have slashed prices, and what they're building tends to be far smaller than the McMansions of the boom, selling for far lower prices...

Step 1: First, the return of first-time buyers will shrink the overhang of new houses for sale.

Step 2: Second, because so few new homes are being built, first-timers will start buying existing homes from owners who want to move up but have been trapped by the dearth of buyers. Their improved fortunes, though, come with a big caveat: The prices of new homes are now lower than comparably-sized existing homes. It's as if used cars are selling for more than new ones. That can't last. So move-up buyers are going to have to accept less than they had hoped to get for their current homes.

They'll get a big break as they trade up, however. Unless they bought at the height of the boom, they'll still sell at a profit. They can then use that equity to buy bigger homes at bargain prices. During the bubble, homebuilders started pushing up home sizes to 3,500 square feet or more. It's those behemoths that are selling for the steepest discounts today.

Step 3: Next, housing starts should start rising, probably next year. The increase, however, will be slow and gradual. For the next two years at least, homebuilders will compete ferociously with existing home sellers for customers.

Step 4: Eventually, the glut of existing homes will disappear as well. The excess of new-home buyers over new homes being built makes that inevitable. But the oversupply is so enormous that the healing process could take as much as three more years. Only then will prices in former bubble markets start rising again...

The New Affordability is now in place. But if rates rise, we'll have to establish a New New Affordability - at even lower prices.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Barack Obama on the economy

Eager to know where Barack Obama stands on the best ways to fix the economy? You can find that here courtesy of Fortune magazine.

John McCain on the economy

In the mood to learn about John McCain's plan to fix the economy? Fortune magazine has a detailed interview right here (the one with Barack Obama will be posted separately).

Thursday, June 5, 2008

KBHome returning to its roots

There's a very interesting (and lengthy) story in the current issue of Fortune magazine (and available at CNNMoney.com) about homebuilder KBHome and how it, like other builders, rode the wave of the housing bubble by building increasingly pricey homes. In the process, however, it moved away from its core product, namely entry-level and first-time-move-up homes that were affordable enough to often compete with the rental housing stock. There are also a lot of swipes at former CEO Bruce Karatz, so it'll be interesting to hear what former KB alum have to say about this article:

During the bubble, KB Home (KBH, Fortune 500), like many other big builders, blew up its old-line business by going ritzy and building expensive houses. Now KB is among the first homebuilders to recognize the error of its ways, and it is returning to its roots as a purveyor of low-cost, smaller homes. In some cases KB is even using the same façades from the go-go years and then shrinking the house that lurks behind them to be half as deep - and about half as expensive. "If I had to write a headline for housing, it would be back to basics," says Broad. "The right thing to do is just what KB is doing: build starter homes that compete with rentals."

KB's recovery plan is not just a tale of two houses. It is a tale of two CEOs. During the bubble Bruce Karatz, a flamboyant marketer, believed that the public's hunger for McMansions would keep the good times rolling for years to come. It was his successor, Jeff Mezger, a hammer-and-studs operator, who recognized that the world had gone mad and steered KB back to first-time buyers. That strategy shift may prove to be a primer on how the housing market rejuvenates itself after a boom and a bust...

In hindsight, the reason for the current malaise is simple: too few buyers. By 2007 more and more people were frozen out of the market - especially the entry-level buyers, who now account for as much as 30% of new-home sales. They're the twentysomething young professionals who rent until they get married or the first child arrives, and then reach for the American dream of homeownership. From 2005 to 2006 some first-timers rushed to purchase homes they couldn't afford with the help of exotic loans. But another big group of young consumers steered clear and are finally looking to buy. Now that prices of new houses have fallen as much as 30% in areas including the Inland Empire and the outskirts of Phoenix, they are returning- prompting a turning point in the housing cycle. Call it the New Affordability...

Today seven in ten KB customers are getting financing from the FHA. The current rates are below 6%, more than 100 basis points under those on jumbo mortgages not backed by the FHA or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. (Fannie and Freddie lend less readily to people with past credit problems and hence aren't as crucial to the entry-level market as FHA financing.) Congress has raised the FHA limit to $729,750 in high-cost areas like Los Angeles through the end of 2008. But even if the limits aren't extended, virtually all the houses KB sells are priced for an FHA loan...

Bargain-hunters are drawn to these small houses, which look just like the behemoths built in 2005 and 2006. In Beaumont, a community of tract homes 70 miles east of Los Angeles, the Seneca Springs community is dotted with 4,000-square-foot, seven-bedroom Mediterranean homes that KB built at the peak. But right next to them the company is erecting new houses with exactly the same 50-foot façades- and a big difference you don't notice from the street: They're about half as deep and roughly 2,000 square feet. Those homes preserve the community's curb appeal by keeping the façades looking similar and sumptuous...

During the bubble KB lost its way. Building big, pricey homes wasn't a mistake- that's what the public wanted. The real problem was that management misread the future: It bought the illusion that the frenzy would last, and gorged on overpriced land. Management's grandiose thinking also pushed KB into splashy new businesses far from its traditions...

Market forces were partly to blame for KB's detour in 2005 and 2006. Builders could sell all the $400,000 homes they wanted, and the margins on those McMansions were a lot fatter than on small houses, chiefly because they could build them on virtually the same small lots as the old-fashioned starter houses. Still, some of the blame for KB's losing its way belongs to the CEO who succeeded Broad, his protégé Bruce Karatz...

In November 2006, KB also promoted its longtime COO, Jeff Mezger, to CEO. In contrast to the flashy Karatz, Mezger is a brick-and-mortar operator...It was Mezger who shifted KB's focus back to the customer who built the franchise, the first-time homebuyer. His coup was making the turn to affordability before such competitors as Centex (CTX, Fortune 500) and Ryland Homes (RYL). "By late 2005 we could see credit was tightening and investors were no longer buying," says Mezger. So he pitched his strategy toward producing the old KB product. "We needed to build houses priced for the median incomes of our communities," says Mezger. "We got away from that in 2004 to 2006." He also strove to build big financial reserves to provide KB with the staying power to weather the stricken market, for several years if needed. Hence, KB sold off huge landholdings and thousands of homes at a loss...

KB is booking those losses because it's been selling homes and lots at well below the amount it spent to build or buy them. But it put out that cash years ago. Now Mezger is building fewer homes and acquiring less land than in the past. So despite the accounting losses, KB is taking in far more cash than it's putting out. As a result, it has increased its cash hoard from $700 million to $1.3 billion and has reduced debt by almost $1 billion, or 33%, in the past 18 months...

Today both land and construction costs are falling rapidly. In California's Inland Empire, the price per finished lot has collapsed, plunging from $150,000 at the peak to about $50,000. Labor costs, the single biggest expense after land, are also dropping as construction trades look for work. In Florida, construction costs for a 2,000-square-foot home have dropped to $80,000, vs. $100,000 at the peak, a 20% reduction. The result is that the average sales price there has fallen from $275,000 to $215,000. In the inland areas of Southern California it has dropped from $350,000 to $260,000. Additionally, KB is cutting costs by assembling homes from prefabricated 12- and 16-foot panels that are hoisted into place with cranes. That wasn't possible when buyers coveted fancier houses with custom elements.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Paul Krugman on the housing market

Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is interviewed in the current issue of Fortune magazine. He's predicting housing price declines of 25% to 50% not based on the prices and incomes, but prices in relationship to potential rental income (which I also think is a much better barometer than incomes alone). So how bad does he think the mortgage crisis will get?

I think home prices will fall enough for us to produce about 20 million people with negative equity. That's almost a quarter of U.S. homes. If home prices are rising, or if there's positive equity, you can refinance or sell. But if you have negative equity, you can end up being foreclosed on, and then some people will just find it to their advantage to walk away...

I still think the estimates people are putting out there - $400 billion or $500 billion in losses - are too low. I think there'll be $1 trillion of losses on mortgage-backed securities showing up somewhere...

My preferred metric is the ratio of home prices to rental rates. By that measure, average home prices nationally got way too high. We'll probably basically retrace all that. So that's about a 25% decline in overall home prices. Only a fraction of that's happened so far. Of course, it varies a lot. In places like Houston or Atlanta, where home prices have not risen much compared with underlying rents, the decline will be relatively small. In places like Miami or Los Angeles, you could be looking at 40% or 50% declines...

And yet, that will still vary greatly depending on location, product type and the existing relationsihp between prices and potential rents.

People at the Fed are talking about feedback loops. At the moment, most of what they're concerned about is that falling home prices are leading to a credit crunch, which is actually driving up mortgage rates and making mortgages unavailable, which is causing home prices to fall even more. I'm not one of those people who thinks the Great Depression is coming back, but there's lots of echoes...

The financial stuff looks like a combination of 1990 and 2001, and probably bigger than both combined. You've got the financial disruption, which is probably bigger than the savings and loan crisis. And you've got the loss of wealth from the housing bust, which is bigger than the dot-com bust. So this looks fairly nasty. And then everybody who's paying attention is worrying about the Japan analogy. Japan never had a really severe recession. It just started with a recession and never really had a recovery for a whole decade. And that's the kind of thing we're afraid of...

The effective borrowing costs for a lot of people are rising, not falling, despite the Fed cuts. The rising spreads are more than offsetting it. The mortgage rates have not been falling as you might hope. And, of course, for many types of people who were able to borrow two years ago, they now can't - at any interest rate. We're looking at the classic pushing-on-a-string problem, where the Fed can cut, but it's not clear it does much for the real economy...

What Greenspan did not do was listen to warnings about subprime. The Fed had substantial regulatory and moral-suasion power. They could have done a lot to limit the excesses. It's more what he failed to do during the boom than what he did in response to the last slump...

The inflation happening right now is not being fed by expectations of inflation - there's no self-reinforcing process - it's just mostly commodity prices going through the roof. That's not pleasant, but it's not something the Fed needs to be all that worried about, as long as it stops there...

I look at the euro at $1.53 and cheer - not for this European trip I'm planning to take after classes are done. But for manufacturing plants in the Midwest, it's a very good thing. Arguably the only good thing we have going for the U.S. economy now is the weak dollar and how that helps exports...

I'm looking at the increase in interest-rate spreads, with the LIBOR (London interbank offered rate) pulling away from U.S. Treasury bills. When the spread gets that big, it suggests that banks are losing trust in each other. Various measures of panic in the markets are looking bad again. I've been thinking to myself, This is now the fourth wave. We had a first wave more than a year ago, when subprime first began to go. And everyone said that was contained. We had a second wave last August, when things started going to hell. We had a third wave late in the fall, and heroic efforts seemed to bring the problems under control. And now here we go again. This is starting to look like a much more comprehensive financial crisis...

It seems to me like every few weeks there's another $300 billion market I've never heard of that has just collapsed. And there's credit cards, auto loans - I don't know what's next. But it's clear we're going to have a commercial real estate crash not too far short of the severity of the housing crash...

If you look historically at other financial crises, they typically end up with big government bailouts. But how's that going to work in this case? We don't even know who to bail out. And part of the problem is we don't even know who owes what to whom...

How much in the end does the ability of consumers to keep spending get affected by what's going on in fairly abstruse financial markets? So I'm not quite sure how this works. Maybe that's a reason for hope. Maybe it'll turn out that all this Wall Street stuff is just less important than we think it is.