Commercial real estate downturn to get worse

Just as the country's housing market is starting to show some (potential) signs of life, the commercial real estate sector is about to go through its own turmoil, impacting the owners & tenants of offices, retail stores, industrial parks and apartments. From the New York Times:

These days, the people who buy and sell office buildings, shopping centers, warehouses, apartment buildings and hotels are hardly in a festive mood, despite some recent encouraging signs relating to the job and housing markets and a recent increase in sales of small office buildings...

The distress is still in its early stages, analysts said. “We are between the first and second inning,” said Richard Parkus, who directs research on commercial mortgage-backed securities for Deutsche Bank. “We’re going to have to get through a very difficult period.”

Mr. Parkus said that vacancy increases and rent declines already mirrored what happened in the 1990s, and until new jobs were created, generating an increase in demand for commercial space and more retail spending, this was not likely to be reversed.

Building values have declined by as much as 50 percent around the country, and even more in Manhattan, where prices soared the highest. As many as 65 percent of commercial mortgages maturing over the next few years are unlikely to qualify for refinancing because of the drop in values and new stricter underwriting standards, he said...

But the damage is expected to be even greater for banks, which are holding $1.3 trillion in commercial mortgages (including apartment buildings) and $535.8 billion in construction and development loans...About $393 billion worth of mortgages are scheduled to mature by the end of next year alone, and an estimated $39 billion more were due to expire this year but have been extended...

The mechanism set up to manage problems with the underlying mortgages is being put to the test for the first time. Some longtime real estate investors who profited from the ready access to mortgages made possible by securitization now complain that the system is impersonal and rigid. Instead of negotiating directly with a lender sitting across a table, Norman Sturner, a partner at Murray Hill Properties, a New York real estate company, said he had been forced to deal by telephone with “a third party sitting out in the Midwest” who seemed indifferent to his problems.

Since the master servicer, which handles the routine servicing of the loan, has no authority to restructure it, the landlord has no way to tackle anticipated problems before it comes into the hands of a special servicer and is already in trouble. “What’s going to happen when billions of dollars can’t be repaid?” said Mr. Sturner, who owns and operates five million square feet of office and apartment buildings.

Economist floats idea of a credit 'mulligan' for foreclosures

On Monday, I spent time at the Spring REOMAC Conference in Palm Desert, CA. REOMAC is a non-profit trade group for those people involved in bank-owned and other distressed properties. During his time on an afternoon panel, economist Christopher Thornberg, who is also a business partner of mine, brought up the idea of a credit 'mulligan' (which in golf circles allows a player to take another shot after making a mistake) for people facing foreclosure. The idea is that if people don't have to worry about a foreclosure on their record for seven years, they could leave the homes they could no longer afford and then perhaps buy a scaled-down version sooner rather than later.

From a purely macro-economic perspective, credit mulligans could provide greater efficiency in allowing the market to find appropriate prices for distressed properties, force banks to recognize the losses on their books, and help clean up the national balance sheet so we could return to a more normalized housing market. But of course there's the overhang of moral hazard: if people think they're going to get a free pass on bad decisions, won't that prompt them to continue such financial irresponsibility in the future? Although the danger of that could be addressed by instituting specific eligiblity standards based on when a home was bought, it's hard to imagine the average citizen agreeing to such a plan even if it would help solve the issue of rising foreclosures.

It certainly doesn't help that the REOMAC crowd is already viewed as a group of vultures descending on hapless victims of sub-prime and Option ARM loans, as revealed in this article on Monday from the New York Times:

The conference this year is centered on the “R.E.O. tsunami,” referring not to any natural disaster but to the one caused by the flood of as many as 700,000 bank properties now on the market nationwide.

There were just 100,000 in 2006.The tsunami has leveled off a bit in recent months, because of foreclosure moratoriums imposed by major banks and the Obama administration. But the real estate agents here were told not to worry — the flood will continue for several more years, and probably has not peaked yet...

“What we have seen so far is just a hint of what is coming down the pike in the next three years,” Marty Higgins, a San Francisco real estate broker who specializes in apartment buildings, said as he stepped off his golf cart, smoking a cigar...

Educational seminars take place on Monday and Tuesday, where the convention-goers can learn about how a giant wave of foreclosed commercial properties is expected to come in behind the flood of bank-owned homes.

They will also learn how to deal with challenges associated with handling vacant properties, like pools the color of pea soup (the color they turn as algae takes over a pool that has not been maintained), as well as what to do when they find a vacant home with abandoned pets...

Sherry Waite, who serves an affluent community in southern California near San Diego, is eagerly awaiting the foreclosure of some of her neighborhood’s high-priced homes.

“Three dozen R.E.O. listings between $1.8 and $8 million,” she said, a pomegranate martini in her hand, as she cited what she soon hopes to be handling. “Hello! Those are big numbers.”

Sherry was at my table during lunch on Monday when someone else at the table showed her the Times article on his Blackberry. "It's true," she told the table. "I do drink those types of martinis!"

Banks now also walking away from properties

Remember how controversial it was when companies like "YouWalkAway" offered distressed homeowners expertise on how to simply walk away from their homes? Now it appears that lenders are doing the same, leaving semi-foreclosed homeowners and cities to pick up the mess.

So does that mean bail-out money is being used to increase neighborhood decay? From a New York Times story:

City officials and housing advocates (in South Bend, Indiana) and in cities as varied as Buffalo, Kansas City, Mo., and Jacksonville, Fla., say they are seeing an unsettling development: Banks are quietly declining to take possession of properties at the end of the foreclosure process, most often because the cost of the ordeal — from legal fees to maintenance — exceeds the diminishing value of the real estate.

The so-called bank walkaways rarely mean relief for the property owners, caught unaware months after the fact, and often mean additional financial burdens and bureaucratic headaches. Technically, they still owe on the mortgage, but as a practicality, rarely would a mortgage holder receive any more payments on the loan. The way mortgages are bundled and resold, it can be enormously time-consuming just trying to determine what company holds the loan on a property thought to be in foreclosure...

Experts suggest the bank walkaways are most visible in states where foreclosures are processed through the courts and therefore tend to be more transparent. Other states, like Indiana and New York, have court-mandated foreclosures, but roughly half of the states allow foreclosures to proceed without court intervention, making it difficult to accurately count the number of bank walkaways in recent months.

The soft housing market and the vandalism that often occurs when a house sits empty are the two main factors influencing the mortgage holders’ decisions to walk away, said Larry Rothenberg, a lawyer for Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, one of the larger creditors’ rights firms in the country.

“Oftentimes when the foreclosure starts out, it’s a viable property,” Mr. Rothenberg said, “but by the time it gets to a sheriff’s sale, it might not have enough value to justify further expense. We’ve always had cases where property was vandalized or lost value, but they were rare compared to these times.”...

The problem seems most acute at the bottom of the market — houses that were inexpensive to begin with — and with investment properties, where investors and banks want speedy closure by writing off bad loans as losses. Banks and investors typically lose 40 percent to 50 percent of their investment on every foreclosure...

In South Bend, boarded-up houses for whom no one has stepped forward are dotting the landscape, adding a fresh layer of blight to communities that were already scarred from the area’s industrial decline. The city is hoping to create a new type of legal mediation process that would bring together the homeowners and the mortgage holders to settle their disputes while allowing the owners to remain in the home — considered crucial to any stabilization effort...

And then, hopefully, some form of responsibility will return from someone.

Krugman on Geithner's plan: "Financial Policy Despair"

Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman is none too pleased with the latest plan by the Obama Administration to address the financial crisis. From his New York Times column:

Right now, our economy is being dragged down by our dysfunctional financial system, which has been crippled by huge losses on mortgage-backed securities and other assets.

As economic historians can tell you, this is an old story, not that different from dozens of similar crises over the centuries. And there’s a time-honored procedure for dealing with the aftermath of widespread financial failure. It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books.

That’s what Sweden did in the early 1990s. It’s also what we ourselves did after the savings and loan debacle of the Reagan years. And there’s no reason we can’t do the same thing now...

But the Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt. So this isn’t really about letting markets work. It’s just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets...

But the real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. Yes, troubled assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus — for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to — will change that fact.

You might say, why not try the plan and see what happens? One answer is that time is wasting: every month that we fail to come to grips with the economic crisis another 600,000 jobs are lost.

Even more important, however, is the way Mr. Obama is squandering his credibility. If this plan fails — as it almost surely will — it’s unlikely that he’ll be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place.

Ouch!

Has Obama's "Katrina" moment already arrived?

Apparently things move very fast in the Obama Administration, with some of his more virulent opponents already calling for his impeachment. But New York Times columnist Frank Rich suggests that the lack of communication on the financial crisis has quickly become Obama's own "Hurricane Katrina" moment. From his column:

A CHARMING visit with Jay Leno won’t fix it. A 90 percent tax on bankers’ bonuses won’t fix it. Firing Timothy Geithner won’t fix it. Unless and until Barack Obama addresses the full depth of Americans’ anger with his full arsenal of policy smarts and political gifts, his presidency and, worse, our economy will be paralyzed. It would be foolish to dismiss as hyperbole the stark warning delivered by Paulette Altmaier of Cupertino, Calif., in a letter to the editor published by The Times last week: “President Obama may not realize it yet, but his Katrina moment has arrived.”...

Six weeks ago I wrote in this space that the country’s surge of populist rage could devour the president’s best-laid plans, including the essential Act II of the bank rescue, if he didn’t get in front of it. The occasion then was the Tom Daschle firestorm. The White House seemed utterly blindsided by the public’s revulsion at the moneyed insiders’ culture illuminated by Daschle’s post-Senate career. Yet last week’s events suggest that the administration learned nothing from that brush with disaster. Otherwise it never would have used Lawrence Summers, the chief economic adviser, as a messenger just as the A.I.G. rage was reaching a full boil last weekend. Summers is so tone-deaf that he makes Geithner seem like Bobby Kennedy...

Click here for entire column.

$1 trillion in new liquidity definitely impacting markets

All that's missing from the Federal Reserve's decision to inject $1 trillion in new liquidity into the marketplace is Oprah Winfrey calling out, "You get a billion! And you get a billion...!" So what's the impact been today? From a New York Times story:

The Federal Reserve’s decision to fire up the printing presses to the tune of $1 trillion continued to wash over world financial markets on Thursday, dragging down the value of the dollar and pushing the prices of oil and gold higher...

The Fed’s Open Market Committee also announced it would keep interest rates near zero, and said it expected its target interest rates to remain exceptionally low “for an extended period.”

Unable to cut its target rate any more to try to jump-start the economy, the Fed is now ratcheting up other efforts like buying securities and essentially printing money to try to loosen credit markets and put the financial system back on its feet. But economists said that such efforts could lead to long-term inflation, and could drive down the value of the dollar.

“They clearly bit the bullet,” said James Knightley, senior economist at ING Financial Markets in London. “There’s no guarantee that this will actually work. While they are expanding the money supply, it’s only going to generate economic activity if people actually borrow. You need the demand on the other side to actually get the credit growth.”

And of course there are concerns that this could lead to high inflation once banks and depositors decide to start spending that money. From an op-ed column in the New York Post:

Right now, there is about $800 billion plus currency in circulation sitting in wallets, purses and cash registers around the country. Another $800 billion is sitting in a vault at the Federal Reserve Board, for a total monetary supply of about $1.6 trillion.

In a vault? Yes. When Congress voted the TARP program to bail out banks, the banks actually took only a small part of the money. The rest they used to offset losses on their balance sheets while letting the Fed hold onto the money.

Why didn't the banks want the money? Because they're not about to make loans in this economy. They're more than happy to let the cash sit at the Fed earning them interest. (The Fed decided to start paying interest last November).

So now the Fed will, in essence, be creating another trillion of money supply to sit in the vault alongside the $800 billion already there. The new money will remain idle for the same reason the old money has because banks won't make loans in this environment.

And what of the money that is going out the door to buy Treasury bills? Those selling Treasuries won't run out and spend the money on flat-screen TVs. With higher taxes coming up next year and the economy in the tank, they won't spend it or lend it they'll probably just turn around and buy more T-bills.

Think of a parking garage filled with cars. The cars' owners leave them in the garage, because it's a bad day with rain and snow and conditions aren't suitable for driving. Similarly, banks and consumers leave their money in the vault at the Fed or in their bank accounts or under the mattress.

When conditions improve, though, all those metaphorical cars will suddenly be taken out for a drive. All at once. And a traffic jam of monumental proportion will ensue.

When everybody starts spending the money they're now leaving in vaults and mattresses, way too much money will be chasing way too few goods and services. Double-digit inflation will return to America.

Yesterday's Fed action won't help but it will put more money out there that the Fed will have to mop up once the economy, on its own, revives...

They tried to outsmart Wall Street, the rest of us pay the price

Tell your kids to be very careful whom they beat up on the playground! Otherwise, those kids might just grow up to become the sort of "I'm smarter than you" math whizzes and physicists who, instead of working in academia or NASA, took on Wall Street as quantitative analysts (also known as "quants") and assumed -- erroneously, as it seems -- that their mathematical models could not only predict where bets on financial options, stocks bonds and other assets would go, but also predict human behavior. Well, they sure showed us. If only human behavior was as elegant as the structure of the universe. From a very interesting New York Times story:

They are known as “quants” because they do quantitative finance. Seduced by a vision of mathematical elegance underlying some of the messiest of human activities, they apply skills they once hoped to use to untangle string theory or the nervous system to making money. This flood seems to be continuing, unabated by the ongoing economic collapse in this country and abroad.

Last fall students filled a giant classroom at M.I.T. to overflowing for an evening workshop called “So You Want to Be a Quant.” Some quants analyze the stock market. Others churn out the computer models that analyze otherwise unmeasurable risks and profits of arcane deals, or run their own hedge funds and sift through vast universes of data for the slight disparities that can give them an edge...

Quants occupy a revealing niche in modern capitalism. They make a lot of money but not as much as the traders who tease them and treat them like geeks. Until recently they rarely made partner at places like Goldman Sachs. In some quarters they get blamed for the current breakdown — “All I can say is, beware of geeks bearing formulas,” Warren Buffett said on “The Charlie Rose Show” last fall. Even the quants tend to agree that what they do is not quite science...

Asked to compare her work to physics, one quant, who requested anonymity because her company had not given her permission to talk to reporters, termed the market “a wild beast” that cannot be controlled, and then added: “It’s not like building a bridge. If you’re right more than half the time you’re winning the game.”

There are a thousand physicists on Wall Street, she estimated, and many, she said, talk nostalgically about science. “They sold their souls to the devil,” she said, adding, “I haven’t met many quants who said they were in finance because they were in love with finance.”

From what I've been reading lately, that sentiment is shared by many.

Click here for full article.

14.8% unemployment and under-employment

According to the Economix blog at the New York Times, if you add up the levels of unemployed PLUS those under-employed (i.e., working the night shift at an Amazon warehouse but with a previous career in PR) as well as having given up looking at all, the total figure is closer to 15%. So exactly how bad is this downturn?

Since the start of 2008, the economy has lost jobs at a steeper rate than at any other point in 50 years. That hadn’t been true until today’s report. But the 651,000 job losses in February — together with 161,000 additional job losses in previous months, a result of Labor Department revisions announced today — means that the decline is worse than it was at any point during the deep recessions of the mid-1970s and of the early 1980s...

The government’s broadest measure of unemployment and underemployment was 14.8 percent in February. That includes some of the people who have stopped looking for work because they don’t believe they can find jobs. It also includes part-time workers who want to be working full time...
So it’s still too early to call this the worst recession since the Great Depression. But it’s bad, and it’s still getting worse at a rapid rate.

Do continuing job losses mean a greater economic shift?

You've probably heard terms before like "creative destruction," in which new technologies and ways of doing business can transform entire industries. But what happens if the entire economy is facing a generational shift? From a story in the New York Times:

Another 651,000 jobs disappeared from the American economy in February, the government reported Friday, as the unemployment rate soared to 8.1 percent — its highest level since 1983.

The latest grim scorecard of contraction in the American workplace largely destroyed what hopes remained for an economic recovery in the first half of this year, and added to a growing sense that 2009 is probably a lost cause...

The acceleration has convinced some economists that, far from an ordinary downturn after which jobs will return, the contraction under way reflects a fundamental restructuring of the American economy. In crucial industries — particularly manufacturing, financial services and retail — many companies have opted to abandon whole areas of business...

For American policy makers, such a reality poses fundamental challenges to the traditional response to hard times. For decades, the government has reacted to economic downturns by handing out temporary unemployment insurance checks, relying upon the resumption of economic growth to deliver needed jobs.

This time, argues Mr. Silvia, the government needs to put a much greater emphasis on retraining workers for careers in other industries.In the auto industry, for example annual American car sales have dropped from some 17 million a year a few years ago to 9 million now. Even if sales increase to 10 or 12 million, that still leaves a lot of unneeded factories...

Much the same can be said for financial services, which gave up another 44,000 jobs in February. During the housing boom, banks hired tens of thousands of well-compensated traders, analysts and marketers to sell mortgage-backed securities and other exotic flavors of investments. That industry is unlikely to return to anything close to its former shape...

Click here for full story.

Commercial renters now worrying about defaulting landlords

For awhile now, I've been warning would-be renters of homes and condos to do some of their own sleuthing to make sure they won't get a knock at the door in the middle of the night from a Sheriff armed with orders to vacate the premises. If a deal is good too good to be true -- such as a four-bedroom home renting for the same or lower price as a typical two-bedroom apartment -- then perhaps additional research is warranted.

Now it seems that tenants of office properties are starting to wonder about the financial strength of their own landlords. From a story in the New York Times:

Office landlords have always scrutinized the financial stability of prospective tenants, but now they are finding themselves under the lens.

Prospective tenants are asking for financial statements from landlords, hoping to avoid companies that might default on their mortgages and leave tenants at risk of losing the space. Tenants are also more wary of subleasing space, and are tending to flock to buildings with stable owners...

During the recent era of cheap money that led to the real estate boom, many investors bought their office buildings at high prices with extensive debt, hoping to flip the building quickly. Some landlords calculated their cash flow too optimistically, intending to lease poorly performing office buildings at high rents to maximize their profit, and are having trouble paying their debt, in some cases falling behind on payments...

Marisa Manley, president of Commercial Tenant Real Estate Representation, said there are reasons for an office tenant to worry about a landlord’s losing the building. Money given by landlords to tenants to customize their office space, generally paid as an allowance over a period of time, could be lost, and in the current market, brokers said that money from landlords could be equivalent to $70 a square foot. Also, services in the building could deteriorate, Ms. Manley said.She suggested that tenants demand that landlords offering tenant improvements put the funds in escrow or in a letter of credit, which means they could not be seized in a bankruptcy proceeding...

Economist Krugman seconds the call to nationalize banks

New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman seconds Nouriel Roubini's call to nationalize the nation's largest banks, laying out his case in plain English. From his column:

The case for nationalization rests on three observations.

First, some major banks are dangerously close to the edge — in fact, they would have failed already if investors didn’t expect the government to rescue them if necessary.

Second, banks must be rescued. The collapse of Lehman Brothers almost destroyed the world financial system, and we can’t risk letting much bigger institutions like Citigroup or Bank of America implode.

Third, while banks must be rescued, the U.S. government can’t afford, fiscally or politically, to bestow huge gifts on bank shareholders...

To end their zombiehood the banks need more capital. But they can’t raise more capital from private investors. So the government has to supply the necessary funds.

But here’s the thing: the funds needed to bring these banks fully back to life would greatly exceed what they’re currently worth. Citi and BofA have a combined market value of less than $30 billion, and even that value is mainly if not entirely based on the hope that stockholders will get a piece of a government handout. And if it’s basically putting up all the money, the government should get ownership in return...

The real question is why the Obama administration keeps coming up with proposals that sound like possible alternatives to nationalization, but turn out to involve huge handouts to bank stockholders...

How would nationalization take place? All the administration has to do is take its own planned “stress test” for major banks seriously, and not hide the results when a bank fails the test, making a takeover necessary. Yes, the whole thing would have a Claude Rains feel to it, as a government that has been propping up banks for months declares itself shocked, shocked at the miserable state of their balance sheets. But that’s O.K....

What we want is a system in which banks own the downs as well as the ups. And the road to that system runs through nationalization.

Be glad you're not facing foreclosure in Dubai!

The economic miracle that once defined the UAE city of Dubai during the boom years is now facing an even more serious economic crash. For foreigners who bought properties, losing a job and facing foreclosure means more than bad credit -- it also could mean being sent to debtor's prison. From a New York Times story:

With Dubai’s economy in free fall, newspapers have reported that more than 3,000 cars sit abandoned in the parking lot at the Dubai Airport, left by fleeing, debt-ridden foreigners (who could in fact be imprisoned if they failed to pay their bills). Some are said to have maxed-out credit cards inside and notes of apology taped to the windshield.

The government says the real number is much lower. But the stories contain at least a grain of truth: jobless people here lose their work visas and then must leave the country within a month. That in turn reduces spending, creates housing vacancies and lowers real estate prices, in a downward spiral that has left parts of Dubai — once hailed as the economic superpower of the Middle East — looking like a ghost town.

No one knows how bad things have become, though it is clear that tens of thousands have left, real estate prices have crashed and scores of Dubai’s major construction projects have been suspended or canceled. But with the government unwilling to provide data, rumors are bound to flourish, damaging confidence and further undermining the economy.

Instead of moving toward greater transparency, the emirates seem to be moving in the other direction. A new draft media law would make it a crime to damage the country’s reputation or economy, punishable by fines of up to 1 million dirhams (about $272,000). Some say it is already having a chilling effect on reporting about the crisis...

Some things are clear: real estate prices, which rose dramatically during Dubai’s six-year boom, have dropped 30 percent or more over the past two or three months in some parts of the city. Last week, Moody’s Investor’s Service announced that it might downgrade its ratings on six of Dubai’s most prominent state-owned companies, citing a deterioration in the economic outlook. So many used luxury cars are for sale , they are sometimes sold for 40 percent less than the asking price two months ago, car dealers say.

Dubai’s roads, usually thick with traffic at this time of year, are now mostly clear. Some analysts say the crisis is likely to have long-lasting effects on the seven-member emirates federation, where Dubai has long played rebellious younger brother to oil-rich and more conservative Abu Dhabi. Dubai officials, swallowing their pride, have made clear that they would be open to a bailout, but so far Abu Dhabi has offered assistance only to its own banks...

Click here for full story.

Also, a video from DW-TV shows what's happening there:

Job losses escalating worldwide

The good news is that we're not alone in this recession. The bad news is that escalating job losses elsewhere in the world are creating instability that the U.S. director of national intelligence claims is a larger threat than terrorism. From a New York Times article:

Worldwide job losses from the recession that started in the United States in December 2007 could hit a staggering 50 million by the end of 2009, according to the International Labor Organization, a United Nations agency. The slowdown has already claimed 3.6 million American jobs. High unemployment rates, especially among young workers, have led to protests in countries as varied as Latvia, Chile, Greece, Bulgaria and Iceland and contributed to strikes in Britain and France...

Just last week, the new United States director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, told Congress that instability caused by the global economic crisis had become the biggest security threat facing the United States, outpacing terrorism.

“Nearly everybody has been caught by surprise at the speed in which unemployment is increasing, and are groping for a response,” said Nicolas Véron, a fellow at Bruegel, a research center in Brussels that focuses on Europe’s role in the global economy.

In emerging economies like those in Eastern Europe, there are fears that growing joblessness might encourage a move away from free-market, pro-Western policies, while in developed countries unemployment could bolster efforts to protect local industries at the expense of global trade.

Indeed, some European stimulus packages, as well as one passed Friday in the United States, include protections for domestic companies, increasing the likelihood of protectionist trade battles...

Millions of migrant workers in mainland China are searching for jobs but finding that factories are shutting down. Though not as large as the disturbances in Greece or the Baltics, there have been dozens of protests at individual factories in China and Indonesia where workers were laid off with little or no notice. The breadth of the problem is also becoming apparent in Taiwan, where exports were down 42.9 percent last month, compared with a year ago, the steepest plunge in Asia...

Calls for protectionism have resonated among a fearful public. In Britain, refinery and power plant employees walked off the job last month to protest the use of workers from Italy and Portugal at a construction project on the coast. Some held up signs highlighting Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s earlier promise of “British jobs for British workers.”...

Even India, whose startling rise to the forefront of the global economy was portrayed in the hit movie “Slumdog Millionaire,” has hit a wall. About 500,000 people lost jobs between October and December 2008, according to one recent analysis...

Many newer workers, especially those in countries that moved from communism to capitalism in the 1990s, have known only boom times since then. For them, the shift is especially jarring, a main reason for the violence that exploded recently in countries like Latvia, a former Soviet republic...

Click here for full article.

Is President Obama up to solving the economic crisis?

Given that the bi-partisan cooperation hoped for by President Obama lasted all of perhaps 10 minutes, economist Paul Krugman is voicing a concern that many others have echoed: is Obama up to the task? From Krugman's column in the New York Times:

Mr. Obama’s victory feels more than a bit like defeat. The stimulus bill looks helpful but inadequate, especially when combined with a disappointing plan for rescuing the banks. And the politics of the stimulus fight have made nonsense of Mr. Obama’s postpartisan dreams...

In both the House and the Senate, the vast majority of Republicans rallied behind the idea that the appropriate response to the abject failure of the Bush administration’s tax cuts is more Bush-style tax cuts. And the rhetorical response of conservatives to the stimulus plan — which will, it’s worth bearing in mind, cost substantially less than either the Bush administration’s $2 trillion in tax cuts or the $1 trillion and counting spent in Iraq — has bordered on the deranged...

And the ugliness of the political debate matters because it raises doubts about the Obama administration’s ability to come back for more if, as seems likely, the stimulus bill proves inadequate...

Officially, the administration insists that the plan is adequate to the economy’s need. But few economists agree. And it’s widely believed that political considerations led to a plan that was weaker and contains more tax cuts than it should have — that Mr. Obama compromised in advance in the hope of gaining broad bipartisan support. We’ve just seen how well that worked...

Over all, the effect was to kick the can down the road. And that’s not good enough. So far the Obama administration’s response to the economic crisis is all too reminiscent of Japan in the 1990s: a fiscal expansion large enough to avert the worst, but not enough to kick-start recovery; support for the banking system, but a reluctance to force banks to face up to their losses. It’s early days yet, but we’re falling behind the curve.

Should we be worried?

Click here for full article.

Bad due diligence leads to financial catastrophe for commercial property investors

Throughout this real estate bust I've been banging the drum that it was bad due diligence on real estate investments that led to to catastrophe, whether it was a young family stretching to buy a home, lenders funding a construction loan for a new subdivision or, more recently, private equity firms unloading trophy office properties. If you only trust those who are making money from your transaction, then you must be prepared for the consequences of such a decision. From a New York Times story:

In 2007, Sam Zell, the billionaire Chicago investor, sold a portfolio of 573 properties he had assembled over three decades, Equity Office Properties Trust, to the Blackstone Group for $39 billion. It was the largest private equity deal in history, but Blackstone did not stop there: it immediately flipped hundreds of the buildings for $27 billion. Today, the wreckage of those purchases is strewn across the country, from Southern California to Austin, Tex., to Chicago to New York. Many of the 16 companies that bought Equity Office buildings are now stuck with punishing debt, properties whose values are plummeting and millions of feet of office space they cannot fill... The impact could ripple beyond the companies that bought Equity Office buildings and the investment banks that financed them. If the owners cannot make their loan payments, it could create a financial crisis for the pension funds, hedge funds and insurance companies that hold securities based on Equity Office mortgages... Mr. Zell, who became chairman and chief executive of the Tribune Company after selling Equity Office, amassed his supersize real estate portfolio over many years. But the deal to sell the properties to Blackstone, the big private equity firm run by Stephen A. Schwarzman, occurred with lightning speed and what one executive who participated in the transaction called, “short-form due diligence.”... The buyers found lenders only too willing to finance as much as 90 percent or more of the purchase price, even as profit margins shrank, on a bet that rents and values would continue to rise. The investment banks, including Morgan Stanley, Wachovia, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, in turn collected their fees as they packaged the loans as securities and sold them to investors...

Click here for full story.

Men losing far more jobs than women

According to a story in the New York Times, so far 82% of job losses in this recession have befallen men, due in large part to jobs in manufacturing, construction and finance. Women, however, tend to work more in fields such as health care and education, which generally are less prone to job losses during downturns. So what could this mean for future home buying trends? Perhaps something both aesthetic as well as financial. From the story:


The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work...

Should the male-dominated layoffs of the current recession continue — and Friday’s jobs report for January may offer more insight — the debate will be moot. A deep and prolonged recession, therefore, may change not only household budgets and habits; it may also challenge longstanding gender roles...

Women may be safer in their jobs, but tend to find it harder to support a family. For one thing, they work fewer overall hours than men. Women are much more likely to be in part-time jobs without health insurance or unemployment insurance. Even in full-time jobs, women earn 80 cents for each dollar of their male counterparts’ income, according to the government data...

When women are unemployed and looking for a job, the time they spend daily taking care of children nearly doubles. Unemployed men’s child care duties, by contrast, are virtually identical to those of their working counterparts, and they instead spend more time sleeping, watching TV and looking for a job, along with other domestic activities...

Click here for full story.

Mortgage fraud UP in 2008?

Just when we thought that the miscreants who were largely responsible for the housing bubble & bust were gone from the mortgage lending industry, a story in the New York Times cites a report that says mortgage fraud actually rose by 45% during the second quarter of 2008 over 2007 levels. Considering lenders rarely pursue people who lie about their financial situations and instead bury their losses in higher fees and interest rates, is it any wonder borrowers and their enablers still try? From the story:

MORTGAGE volume may have fallen last year, but not incidences of fraud. In fact, according to a recent report from the Mortgage Asset Research Institute in Reston, Va., occurrences of fraud among loan officers, brokers and other industry professionals actually outpaced 2007 levels by 45 percent in the second quarter of 2008, the most recent reporting period.

The Research Institute, a consulting firm, does not release specific figures, which it compiles from surveys of lenders that make most of the nation’s mortgages each year.

The report, released in early December, found that 36 percent of the fraudulent mortgage activity involved loan professionals’ misrepresenting borrowers’ incomes, while another 20 percent involved misrepresentations of borrowers’ employment.

Lenders did not specify how much of this activity was simply stretching of the truth by loan professionals on the applications, categorized as “fraud for property,” as opposed to “fraud for profit” schemes, in which bogus loans are taken out to defraud lenders of money. Fraud for property is far more common.
Click here for full story.

Citigroup approves of mortgage cram-downs

In a move that could set the stage for other large lenders to follow suit, Citigroup has announced its support of legislation to allow bankruptcy judges to alter the terms of mortgages, including reductions of principal. From a New York Times story:

In a move that would help troubled homeowners, Citigroup agreed to support legislation that would let bankruptcy judges adjust mortgages for at-risk borrowers, leading Congressional Democrats said on Thursday...

Members of the House and Senate said Citigroup had agreed to drop its opposition, providing no future mortgages are covered by the law.Citigroup, which is receiving more than $300 billion in bailout assistance, says that it is open to measures that would help homeowners...

The revised bill that Citigroup endorsed would allow bankruptcy judges to adjust the principal payments or interest rates on existing loans. Judges could also extend the terms on mortgage loans, according to the language of the bill, which would force lenders to take losses without a say in bankruptcy court proceedings...

No other bank has broken ranks with the industry on the proposed bill. Mr. Durbin said he hoped the move by Citigroup, should other banks and financial trade associations take the same stance, would lead to backing by enough Democrats and moderate Republicans to push the bill through.

Click here for full story.

Office market imperiled for 2009

It looks like the next real estate domino to fall (after housing, retail and hotels) will be office space, with every market in the U.S. to suffer rising vacancies and falling rent. From a New York Times story:

Vacancy rates in office buildings exceed 10 percent in virtually every major city in the country and are rising rapidly, a sign of economic distress that could lead to yet another wave of problems for troubled lenders.

With job cuts rampant and businesses retrenching, more empty space is expected from New York to Chicago to Los Angeles in the coming year. Rental income would then decline and property values would slide further. The Urban Land Institute predicts 2009 will be the worst year for the commercial real estate market “since the wrenching 1991-1992 industry depression.”

Banks and other financial companies have not had the problems with commercial properties in this recession that they have had with residential properties. But many building owners, while struggling with more vacancies and less rental income, will need to refinance commercial mortgages this year.

The persistent chill in lending from banks to the credit markets will make that difficult — even for borrowers who are current on their payments — setting the stage for loan defaults.

The prospect bodes ill for banks, along with pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds and others holding the loans or pieces of them that were packaged and sold as securities...

Click here for full story.

The real price of printing money for bailouts

I've been reading a lot lately about the impact of these bailouts to the economy, with many pundits predicting future inflation once the current round of deflation eases as inventories of homes, cars and other goods are absorbed and financial deleveraging continues. Eventually, a much higher level of dollars sloshing around the global economy will be chasing fewer goods and places in which to invest. From a New York Times story:

...it may seem perverse that in this new era of reckoning — with consumers finally tapped out, government coffers lean and banks paralyzed by fear — many economists have concluded that the appropriate medicine is a fresh dose of the very course that delivered the disarray: Spend without limit. Print money today, fret about the consequences tomorrow. Otherwise, invite a loss of jobs and business failures that could cripple the nation for years...

But where does all this money come from? And how can a country that got itself in peril by borrowing and spending without limit now borrow and spend its way back to safety?

In the case of the Fed, the money comes from its authority to print dollars from thin air. Since late August, the Fed has expanded its balance sheet from about $900 billion to more than $2.2 trillion, creating $1.3 trillion that did not exist to replace some of the trillions wiped out by falling house prices and vengeful stock markets. The Fed has taken troublesome assets off the hands of banks and simply credited them with having reserves they previously lacked.

In the case of the Treasury, the money comes from the same wellspring that has been financing American debt for decades: Investors in the United States and around the world — not least, the central banks of China, Japan and Saudi Arabia, which have parked national savings in the safety of American government bonds.

Americans have gotten accustomed to treating this well as bottomless, even as anxiety grows that it could one day run dry with potentially devastating consequences...

Since the Great Depression, the conventional prescription for such times is to have the government step in and create demand by cycling its dollars through the economy, generating jobs and business opportunities. That such dollars must be borrowed is hardly ideal, adding to the long-term strains on the nation. But the immediate risks of not spending them could be grave...

The most frequently voiced worry about the bailouts is that the Fed, by sending so much money sloshing through the system, risks generating a bad case of rising prices later on. That puts the onus on the Fed to reverse course and crimp economic activity by lifting interest rates and selling assets back to banks once growth resumes. But finding the appropriate point to act tends to be more art than science. The Fed might move too early and send the economy
back into a tailspin. It might wait too long and let too much money generate inflation...

But that, as most economists see it, is a worry for another day. Some policy makers are focused on staving off the opposite problem — deflation, or falling prices, as demand weakens to the point that goods pile up without buyers, sending prices down and reducing the incentive for businesses to invest. That could shrink demand further and perhaps even deliver the sort of downward spiral that pinned Japan in the weeds of stagnant growth during the 1990s.

Click here for full story.