Welcome to our website. Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum dolor.

Lorem ipsum eu usu assum liberavisse, ut munere praesent complectitur mea. Sit an option maiorum principes. Ne per probo magna idque, est veniam exerci appareat no. Sit at amet propriae intellegebat, natum iusto forensibus duo ut. Pro hinc aperiri fabulas ut, probo tractatos euripidis an vis, ignota oblique.

Ad ius munere soluta deterruisset, quot veri id vim, te vel bonorum ornatus persequeris. Maecenas ornare tortor. Donec sed tellus eget sapien fringilla nonummy. Mauris a ante. Suspendisse quam sem, consequat at, commodo vitae, feugiat in, nunc. Morbi imperdiet augue quis tellus.

Minggu, 16 Mei 2010

Diversity growing in the suburbs

A new Brookings Institution report highlights the changes that are taking place in America's suburbs:
The idealized vision of suburbia as a homogenous landscape of prosperity built around the nuclear family took another hit over the past decade, as suburbs became home to more poor people, immigrants, minorities, senior citizens and households with no children, according to a Brookings Institution report to be released Sunday.

Although the suburbs remain a destination of choice for families with children, nuclear families are outnumbered. Nationwide, 21 percent of American families are composed of married couples with children. Their ranks declined in more than half of the suburbs...

Demographers at Brookings say suburbs are developing many of the same problems and attractions that are more typically associated with cities. And cities, in turn, have been drawing more residents who are young and affluent, so the traditional income gap between wealthier suburbs and more diverse cities narrowed slightly.

"The decade brought many cities and suburbs still closer together along a series of social, demographic and economic dimensions," said the report, titled "State of Metropolitan America." ...

The report outlines a decade in which several demographic milestones were passed as the nation's population topped 300 million midway through. About two-thirds of Americans live in the nation's 100 largest metropolitan areas, virtually all regions with populations of 500,000 or more.

"We think we're a small-town nation," Berube said. "But small towns exist because they're connected to something bigger, which allows residents to make a living."

The decade saw increasing diversity in the suburbs, even though they remain two-thirds white overall. For the first time, more African Americans live in suburbs than in core cities, a benchmark that Hispanics and Asians had passed by 2000. ... Also for the first time, more than half of all immigrants live in the suburbs. ...

Suburbs already are facing a rising tide of poor residents. Over the past decade, the number of suburban poor increased 25 percent, almost five times faster than the urban poor growth rate. For the first time, suburban poor outnumbered urban poor by 1.5 million. However, suburbanites were far more likely to have incomes just below the poverty line, while residents of cities were more likely to be in deep poverty, with incomes less than half of the poverty level.

In what the report calls a cultural generation gap, the nation's young are racially and ethnically diverse, while the older population is more white.

Sabtu, 15 Mei 2010

Updated blog comment policy

For those who have accounts and log in:

As far as I'm concerned, you have complete free speech on this blog, except when it comes to posting link spam. (Note, however, that David is less tolerant of foul language than I am.)

For those who choose a consistent username, but don't log in:

As far as I'm concerned, you will usually have free speech on this blog, but if you are nasty toward others, post link spam, or I suspect you are either trolling or engaging in sockpuppetry, I may delete your comment.

For those who insist on posting as "Anonymous":

If you want to hold other commenters accountable for their previous statements on this blog, then at least have the courage to choose a consistent and unique username for yourself (other than "Anonymous") so you can be held accountable as well. If you make snide remarks towards others, your comment may be deleted. If your comment is offensive or disagreeable in general, your comment may be deleted. If you attempt to hold others accountable for their previous statements while you cowardly hide behind the username "Anonymous", your comment will definitely be deleted. If you post link spam, I will delete your comment. If I suspect you are either trolling or engaging in sockpuppetry, I may delete your comment.

In short, the five seconds you save by not using a unique and consistent username will substantially increase the odds that your comment will be deleted.

All suspected link spam will be deleted.

Link spammers frequently post comments on this and other blogs. Since most blogs use nofollow tags in the comments section, link spammers are mostly wasting their time. However, their actions are still annoying for blog owners and blog readers.

Link spammers often try to make their comments look legitimate, which can make it difficult for me to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate comments. Thus, I may sometimes unintentionally delete legitimate comments when they contain links to other websites.

Suspected trolls and sockpuppets may be deleted.

I find it extremely difficult to distinguish between trolls and regular commenters who just happen to be disagreeable. Sockpuppets are also hard to spot. I will try to err on the side of free speech, but I may occasionally delete a legitimate comment that appears to be from a troll or sockpuppet. The easiest way to avoid having a comment deleted is to be nice.

Senin, 10 Mei 2010

Freddie Mac is a mess

Economist Dean Baker suspects Freddie Mac continues to have huge losses because the government is using it to provide a stealth bailout to mortgage lenders:
Mr. Baker’s concern that Freddie may be racking up losses by overpaying for mortgages derives from his suspicion that the government might be encouraging it to do so as a way to bolster the operations of mortgage lenders.

That would make Fannie’s and Freddie’s mortgage-buying yet another backdoor bailout of the nation’s banks, Mr. Baker said, and could explain the government’s reluctance to include them in the reform efforts now being so hotly debated in Washington.

“If they are deliberately paying too much for mortgages to support the banks,” Mr. Baker said, “the government wants them to be in a position to keep doing that, and that would mean not doing anything about their status until further down the road.”

Sabtu, 08 Mei 2010

Sitemap

Interview with the CEO of Goldman Sachs

Here's a good long interview with Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, from last week's episode of Fareed Zakaria GPS.


Fareed Zakaria GPS airs Sundays on CNN at 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM. The show is highly recommended for anyone interested in government policy and international relations. Zakaria has a PhD in Political Science and is far more knowledgeable than most Washington journalists.

Kamis, 06 Mei 2010

Harvard and UPenn economists: Credit market policies didn't cause the housing bubble

Two Harvard economists and one University of Pennsylvania economist say most of what is popularly believed about the growth of the housing bubble isn't true:
Contrary to the assertions of many economists and others, the boom and bust in housing over the last decade was not primarily caused by low interest rates, reduced downpayment requirements, or laxer underwriting standards, conclude Edward Glaeser, Joshua Gottlieb, and Joseph Gyourko in “Did Credit Market Policies Cause the Housing Bubble?” a new Policy Brief...

“It isn’t that low interest rates don’t boost housing prices. They do,” write Glaeser, a professor of economics who directs the Rappaport Institute and the Taubman Center, and his colleagues, Joshua Gottlieb, a doctoral student in economics at Harvard; and Joseph Gyourko, a professor of real estate at the Wharton School.

“It isn’t that higher mortgage approval rates aren’t associated with rising home values. They are,” they add. “But the impact of these variables, as predicted by economic theory and as estimated empirically over many years, is too small to explain much of the housing market event that we have just experienced.” Specifically, the authors found that the 1.3 percentage point drop in real interest rates between 2000 and 2006 was responsible for only a 10 percent rise in prices, about a third of the average price increases nationally during that time...

Glaeser, Gottlieb and Gyourko did find that the price effect of interest rates was greatest in metropolitan areas such as Boston, San Francisco, New York, and Seattle that have less land, more regulation and/or topography that is not conducive to new buildings. However, that impact was not enough to explain the full magnitude of the housing bubble in those places. ...

The authors also found that contrary to the assertions of many analysts, including Benjamin Bernanke, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, reduced downpayment requirements did not greatly contribute to the housing bubble. Rather, they found that on average the share of the purchase price covered by a mortgage was basically unchanged over the course of the boom...
You might want to take what these economists say with a grain of salt. Edward Glaeser is associated with Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, which routinely denied the existence of the housing bubble until it burst, although to be fair, his name never appeared on any of the annual studies that denied the bubble's existence. It does suggest, however, that Harvard economists are not the cracker-jack financial wizzes that they are supposed to be.

CNBC's Diana Olick has more on this study.

I have long believed that fundamental factors spark all bubbles, but then a get rich-quick-mentality takes over in the minds of buyers as they watch asset prices rise. As they buy up assets in a quest to chase the market, this increased demand pushes prices up even more, which then convinces more people that they can get rich quick by jumping in. Thus a feedback loop develops where the get-rich-quick mentality becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, until something finally breaks the cycle. Then the cycle reverses itself.

I believe this is how all bubbles happen, not just housing bubbles. However, I have been attacked by many Bubble Meter readers for this belief that buyers largely have themselves to blame for the bubble. Despite the fact that bidding wars often broke out during the bubble, in which buyers frequently bid above the asking price of the house, it is far easier for people to lay all the blame on a small group of Wall Street bankers than spread the blame over a large swath of the American public.

If Glaeser et al's study is correct, it doesn't mean that credit market policies are blameless for the bubble. However, the major factor in the growth of the bubble, which they were unable to identify, could easily be the get-rich-quick feedback loop. This type of short-term irrationality is something that traditional economic theory does not recognize. Economic man, after all, is purely rational.

Senin, 03 Mei 2010

Fannie Mae to tighten ARM and IO lending standards

Fannie Mae is finally moving toward sensible lending standards:
Fannie Mae on Friday said it will tighten lending standards on adjustable-rate mortgages and "interest-only" loans that helped fuel the housing bubble and have led to a disproportionate share of losses for the mortgage-finance giant.

The changes, which will take effect in September, will require lenders to qualify borrowers based on whether or not they can afford potentially higher payments once adjustable-rate loans reset, and will require much more stringent criteria for interest-only borrowers.

During the housing boom, borrowers increasingly used adjustable-rate mortgages with low initial rates to buy bigger homes and banked on ever-rising values to refinance before payments rose higher. When prices stopped rising, more borrowers weren't able to sell or refinance to avoid higher payments. That sent defaults soaring. ...

Freddie Mac said earlier this year that it would stop buying interest-only loans in September. Fannie said it will continue to offer such loans, but it will require borrowers to have credit scores of at least 720 and 30% equity. Borrowers must also have at least two years worth of cash reserves remaining after closing.

For adjustable-rate mortgages that reset within their first five years, lenders will have to qualify borrowers under higher payment levels, using the greater of either the current interest rate plus two percentage points, or the current interest rate plus the extra margin charged by the lender.
'bout time. How long ago did the financial crisis start?

The home buyer tax credit is no more.

Good riddance. CNBC's Diana Olick offers the following comment:
Most experts I talk to, including the Realtors' own economist, believe we may see another dip in sales and prices before we are really on the road to recovery.

Minggu, 02 Mei 2010

Goldman Sachs CEO inverview on CNN

For anyone who's interested, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein is being interviewed on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS right now. It re-airs at 1:00 PM ET.

Both last week's and this week's episodes dealt almost entirely with financial reform and the financial crisis. Here's last week's episode, which included an interview with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner: