What The Income Statement Of The Entire Market Looks Like Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/26/2013 16:57 -0400 Ben Bernanke Bond Morgan Stanley New Normal In the New Normal, where fundamentals ceased to matter some time around March 2009 when Bernanke decided to nationalize first the bond, then the stock market, and soon, every other "market", stuff like "data" is largely meaningless. However, for those who are still curious how the cash flow in the biggest corporate market - that of America - looks like, instead of merely chasing the latest trend or looking for a heatmap break out, here it is. Using Factset data for the 1500 largest stocks (ex fins), Morgan Stanley has broken down the world's biggest Income Statement by line item (and by sector). The results are as follows. Some observations: Of the $12 trillion in total revenue, nearly $6 trillion each year is the cost of goods sold for consumer companies (discretionary plus staples), energy, and industrials. Gross profit (net of COGS and DA) is just 27% of revenue, or a little over $3 trillion. Consolidated income tax is a tiny 2.5% of revenue. Of all sectors, Energy companies paid the most taxes in FY 2012: $89 billion. Interest expense was a tiny $215 billion. It is here that the bulk of EPS "generation" has taken place in the past two years now that companies have fired the bulk of the "fat", courtesy of constant refinancing into an ever cheaper cost of debt. A historical analysis of the interest expense line item shows a constant decline. At some point, this number will start rising again, especially if indeed the Fed wishes to see rates rise. At that point, there will be only downside for the market's Net Income, despite what paid financial-humor pundits say to the contrary on TV. The same chart as above broken down by industry: Source: Morgan Stanely Average: 4.77778 Your rating: None Average: 4.8 ( 9 votes)
Presenting: The Housing Bubble 2.0 Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/29/2013 22:25 -0400 Ben Bernanke Bond Housing Bubble Housing Market Real estate It was just seven short years ago that the prices at the epicenter of the housing bubble, Los Angeles, CA rose by 50% every six months as the nation experienced its first parabolic move higher in home prices courtesy of Alan Greenspan's disastrous policies: a time when everyone knew intuitively the housing market was in an epic bubble, yet which nobody wanted to pop because there was just too much fun to be had chasing the bouncing ball, not to mention money. Well, courtesy of the real-time real estate pricing trackers at Altos Research , we now know that the very worst of the housing bubble is not only back, but it is at levels not seen since the days when a house in the Inland Empire was only a faint glimmer of the prototype for BitCoin. Exhibit A: The red line is the 7 day rolling average of median LA house prices per Altos ( more data here ). It is up 50% since the beginning of the year. One can only stand back and stare. Still not convinced? After all those West Coast folks are known for being a little trigger happy when it comes to "flipping that house." Which is why, from the heartland of the East Coast, we present... Exhibit B : The Gretschbuilding, an old guitar factory turned condo building in Williamsburg, just had a crazy week: Crain’s reports that three units sold in all-cash transactions, each one setting new highs on a per-square-foot basis. The units in questions were two adjacent two-bedrooms on the ninth floor, selling for $1.4 million and $1.5 million, and a larger two-bedroom on the 10th floor selling at $2.5 million — all at an average of $1,150 per square foot. “ It needs to be cash, it needs to be over ask, and (the listing) will never see the light of day,” the broker had told all the buyers.According to Crain’s, Williamsburg condos are currently averaging $794 per square foot, with high-end condos like Northside Piers bringing in closer to $1,050 per foot. The broker who handled the Gretschsales at 60 Broadway can’t seem to believe it herself: “ It’s unbelievable what’s going on out there ,” she told Crain’s. Our question is, can the high sales we’ve been seeing lately be a bubble based on low mortgage rates if the buyers are paying record-setting prices with all cash? 3 Condos Sold in Williamsburg at Record Prices Great job Bernanke Co. You have succeeded at rolling up the housing, credit, bond, tech and equity bubbles all into one. Watching the glorious unwind of all this unprecedented academic-created stupidity will be worth the hyperinflated price of admission alone. h/t @Gloeschi Average:
Is Stability In Japanese Bonds Signalling Gold's Next Leg Higher? Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/30/2013 19:39 -0400 Bond Mean Reversion Volatility While intraday ranges on Japanese government bonds (JGB) remain relatively high to the last ten years average volatility, the market has begun to deal better with the unprecedented flows from the BoJ day after day. This in turn has compressed the hedges in JGBs (implied volatility has fallen). This has occurred for two reasons: first, Japanese banks (after front-running the BoJ to all-time record low yields) have likely reduced duration (and thus the need for more protection); and second, the initial fear fear has worn off (as we see again and again in volatility flares) and with it the need for preemptive collateral satisfying asset liquidations. As we noted here , there is a very explicit link between the volatility (or risk) associated with one of the world's lowest yield and supposedly risk-free sovereign bond complexes and the need for liquidity (or cash over gold or commodities) . The last two weeks has seen JGB bond vol drop and gold rally as the correlation (which appears to have strong causal links) continues; and suggests notably more upside for Gold (especially as CoT data shows net longs remain extremely low). In short: screaming JGB vol (among other things) pushed gold much lower. How much higher will it pull it back now as the mean reversion reasserts itself? Chart: Bloomberg Average: 5 Your rating: None Average: 5 ( 3 votes)
Worth Over $500,000? Then QE Has Worked For You; Everyone Else Better Luck Next Time Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/23/2013 19:33 -0400 recovery Not supremely confident despite the stock market being at all-time highs? Unsure of the future and feeling poorer than in the past? You are not alone. In fact, you are among the 93% majority. As the Pew Research Center finds , during the first two years of the US economic 'recovery', the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% . As they explain, affluent households typically have their assets concentrated in stocks and other financial holdings, while less affluent households typically have their wealth more heavily concentrated in the value of their home. Due to these differences, wealth inequality increased during the first two years of the recovery. The upper 7% of households saw their aggregate share of the nation’s overall household wealth pie rise to 63% in 2011, up from 56% in 2009, with the mean wealth of affluent households now 24x the less affluent group (up from 18x in 2009) . So the next time you see some talking-head on TV devoutly proclaiming his faith in the Fed's QE policies, perhaps it's worth considering in which cohort he and his clients sit. Source: Pew Research Center Average:
We Have A Hindenburg Omen Sighting Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/15/2013 18:19 -0400 Ben Bernanke Remember when the last time a cluster of Hindenburg Omens nearly toppled the market in August 2010 and the only saving grace was Ben Bernanke's QE2 announcement at Jackson Hole which sent risk soaring? Today, nearly three years later, we got the first instance of the Omen again. Will it be a one-off fluke, or a cluster, which is needed to confirm this dreaded technical formation? Stay tuned in the coming days to find out... The last cluster was Aug 2010 (and was only saved by Bernanke), the previous cluster was Oct 2007 and we know what followed... (red bars are Hindenberg Omens) Full details of construction here . Average: 4.533335 Your rating: None Average: 4.5 ( 15 votes) Tweet - advertisements - Login or register to post comments 34996 reads Printer-friendly version Send to friend Similar Articles You Might Enjoy: Frontrunning: Friday 13th Post Hindenburg Omen Edition Presenting The Sovereign Default Equivalent Of The "Hindenburg Omen" Hindenburg Omen Creator Has Exited The Market Second Hindenburg Omen Confirmation In As Many Days, Third H.O. Event In One Week Hindenburg Omen Confirmation #1
注意City的长度 data _72 ; first='ipswich england'; /*city=substr(first,1,7);*/ city=scan(first,1); city_country=city!!','!!'England'; run; proc print data=_72; run; SCAN( argument,n,delimiters ) argument specifies the character variable or expression to scan. n specifies which word to read. delimiters are special characters that must be enclosed in single quotation marks (' '). If you do not specify delimiters , default delimiters are used. Note that the SCAN function assigns a length of 200 to each target variable. (Remember, a target variable is the variable that receives the result of the function.) So, if you submit the DATA step above, the LastName , FirstName , and MiddleName variables are each assigned a length of 200. This length is longer than necessary for these variables. SUBSTR( argument,position,n ) where argument specifies the character variable or expression to scan. position is the character position to start from. n specifies the number of characters to extract. If n is omitted, all remaining characters are included in the substring TRIM( argument )
Four Reasons Why There Is No 'Pent-Up' Capex Spend Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/17/2012 12:36 -0500 Morgan Stanley Consensus seems convinced (and short-term market prevarications suggest) that once we get past the 'uncertainty' of the fiscal cliff, then there will be a surge in pent-up spending from companies in the first half of 2013 . Morgan Stanley's Adam Parker snubs the mainstream meme and looks at the data - finding four significant reasons why a surge in capital spending is unlikely. From 'average' sales-to-capex ratios and manufacturing utlization to inventory levels and the overall trend in deprecation , Parker interestingly questions whether "high capital spending is ever good?" Via Morgan Stanley, The consensus sees pent-up demand for capital spending from C-level executives ready to spend , but who want clarity on a number of laws that may change in the coming year. While no doubt uncertainty has weighed on corporate decision-making, we thought it might be timely to look at capital spending trends a bit more holistically. Our conclusion – a large capital spending surge is unlikely. Is high capital spending ever good? We analyzed the correlation between changes in capex-to-sales and prior, current and future sales growth. If capital spending picked up in the energy sector following a fiscal compromise, that would likely be more bullish than it would be for telecom, as the former is historically associated with future sales growth, whereas the latter is generally a reaction to past sales growth. While we don’t see it as likely, a capex ramp in technology and materials is typically positive for higher sales later in the subsequent year, even if it causes a nearer-term sell-off in stocks. Generally, though, low capital spenders have usually been rewarded relative to their high-spending counterparts. In health care and materials, higher capital spending historically has been much better than in technology or telecommunications. Investment conclusion: Four reasons why we don’t think a large capital spending surge is likely. 1. Current and forecasted capital spending-to-sales levels: While global capital spending relative to sales is forecasted to be down in 2013, it is close to average levels over the past decade. Four of ten sectors (utilities, materials, energy, and technology) are forecasted to have above “trend” capital spending to sales for 2013, so upside surprise is not as likely here . 2. Manufacturing utilization: While utilization levels have risen sharply from the 2008 lows, recent trends have slowed. The steadiness of the recent decline and the ample room for higher utilization until capacity is tight suggest that a surge is not likely . Only six of 22 major industries have utilization levels above their long-term average. 3. Trend analysis: We analyzed the cyclical level of DA expense (above the trend level) and compared it with capital spending expectations at the industry group level. On the margin, we think staples and technology may spend more capex in 2013 than industrials and consumer discretionary stocks, relative to current expectations. 4. Inventory levels: Structurally, global inventory-to-sales has been downward sloping for years. However, over the last decade or so, inventory levels have stabilized at just less than 10% of sales. While US inventory levels seem leaner than those outside the US, a big inventory build requiring a capacity surge seems implausible. Perhaps auto components, electrical equipment, and construction could see some build, particularly relative to communications equipment. Source: Morgan Stanley Average: 4.6 Your rating: None Average: 4.6 ( 5 votes) Tweet Login or register to post comments 4840 reads Printer-friendly version Send to friend Similar Articles You Might Enjoy: David Rosenberg: "RIP Wealth Effect" Watch The NAR's Larry Yun Explain The Pending Home Sales Miss What Every Farmer And Commodity Trader Will Be Glued To Tomorrow at 830ET Is The Inexplicable American Consumer Rebelling? From Cautious Optimist To Skeptical Pessimist
"Survival Of The Fattest": It's A Fat, Fat World After All Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/24/2012 16:21 -0500 Brazil China Corruption fixed Gross Domestic Product M2 McDonalds United Kingdom Back in March, we first presented a rather stunning finding: by 2020 75% of Americans will be obese or overweight. This was promptly followed up with a post showing just how it is transpired that America became the fattest nation in the world in less than 20 years. What however may not be known, is that America's fatness epidemic is not localized to the country that gave the world the McDonalds burger (and the McMansion): it really is a fat, fat world, after all. Behold - survival of the fattest : It is hardly surprising in this light, then, that the estimate for number of people living with diabetes has been increased, to 371 million - an increase of 11% over 2011. So with the sensitive issue of what one stuffs in their mouth becoming of paramount importance, primarily due to the avalanche in social costs as a result of escalating morbid obesity, here is a primer on the key facts and figures relating to obesity, domestic as well as foreign, and impacting not just the developed world but also emerging economies, from GS' Mick Ready and Keyur Parekh. Obesity is a unique phenomenon affecting almost all countries. It is defined as excessively high amount of body fat in relation to lean tissue, and individuals are generally considered overweight if their BMI is over 25, and clinically obese if their body mass index (BMI) is greater than 30. The 1980s saw a sharp acceleration in BMI in OECD countries. Before 1980, global obesity rates were generally below 10% but today, in almost half of OECD countries, 50% of the population is overweight. Interestingly, data suggests that obesity is a pandemic that is now impacting not just the developed western countries, but also the emerging economies. In BRIC economies, obesity rates are somewhat lower than in their OECD counterparts, but urbanisation and lifestyle changes are driving a significant increase in average BMI. In China, the proportion of the population considered overweight increased from 13.5% in 1991 to 26.7% in 2006; in Brazil between 1975 and 2003, the obesity rate tripled in men and doubled in women; and in Russia 25% of women and 10% of men are now considered obese. Data suggest that at levels of GDP below US$5,000 per capita there is a linear relationship between GDP and mean BMI, and that the only pre-condition for developing an obese population is the ability to afford food. In low income countries, obese individuals are typically middle-aged women from wealthy, urban settings. In countries with GDP of more than US$5,000 per capita pa, obesity is not characterized by gender, or age, but disadvantaged groups typically are at greater risk of becoming obese; 33% of US adults earning over US$15,000 pa are obese, compared with 25% of those earning over US$50,000 pa. 33% of adults who did not graduate high school were obese, compared with 21.5% who graduated from college. What’s causing this increase? Obesity is a complex problem, with multiple factors influencing its development within a population. These factors include systemic and environmental drivers, which provide an infrastructure to promote high growth, consumption of transport and recreational factors, which limit the physical activity within a population, and behavioral patterns, where individuals consume high-energy foods and lead sedentary lifestyles. For an individual, obesity is caused by an energy imbalance: simply put, obese individuals consume more energy than they use. Energy intake is a clear factor in the rise of obesity, and dietary intake is strongly influenced by the kinds of food we eat. Changes in the food system to more mass-produced, processed foods with added salt, fats and sugars, coupled with more effective marketing of these products, especially targeting young children has changed the kind of food we eat which contributes to this energy imbalance. To summarize, changes in the global food system, which produces readily available, inexpensive, highly processed and well marketed foods, coupled with changes in working patterns, has created an energy imbalance resulting in increased levels of obesity. Sugary drinks: The choice of a heavy generation There are multiple factors which are linked to the development of obesity globally, but sugar-sweetened drinks have attracted particular attention in the US. Sugar intake from sugar-sweetened drinks is thought to be the largest single caloric food source in the US, approaching 15% of the daily calorific intake in several population groups. High-sugar drinks are effectively marketed to children and young adults, and their consumption is often linked to fast food, which is likely to exacerbate the obesity problem. Many sugar-sweetened drinks contain high-fructose corn syrup, and there is evidence to suggest a link between high-fructose corn syrup and the development of insulin resistance (think diabetes). Multiple studies have shown that replacing a sugar-containing drink with a sugar-free equivalent significantly reduced weight gain and fat accumulation in normal weight children, prompting calls from the American Heart Association, the Institute of Medicine, and the Obesity society to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. The consequences of being obese: Shorter, less healthy lives The life expectancy of a person with a BMI of 40-45 is reduced by around 8-10 years, which is similar to the reduction in life expectancy suffered by smokers. An overweight person of average height increases their risk of death by around 30% for every 15kg of weight. Obesity is a key risk factor in the development of multiple diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, osteoarthritis and cancer. The most direct and obvious impact of obesity is on incidence of diabetes - a severely obese person is around 60 times more likely to develop diabetes than someone with normal weight. High blood pressure and high cholesterol levels are also linked to high BMI. These combined risk factors make an obese individual more likely to die from heart disease or stroke. But perhaps a less intuitive link is the one between obesity, physical inactivity and cancer. Obesity and physical inactivity are also a key risk factor in the development of certain cancers; around 9% of colorectal cancers, and 11% of postmenopausal breast cancer in women is linked to obesity. An additional 5kg/m2 in BMI is thought to increase the risk of colorectal cancer by 24% in males, and to increase the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer in women by 12%. Obesity and cancer – the not so obvious link According to the American Cancer Society, one-third of cancer deaths are linked to obesity and/or lack of physical activity. Improvements in cancer diagnosis, treatment and prevention has seen an improvement in death rates for cancer in the US over recent years, but the obesity epidemic within the US puts this trend at risk. Obesity is a known risk factor for multiple different tumour types, including oesophageal, colorectal, endometrial, kidney and certain breast cancers. In addition to increasing the risk of developing certain cancers, obese individuals are less likely to survive their cancer diagnosis; individuals with a BMI above 40 had death rates 52% higher for men and 62% higher for women when compared to people of normal weigh. Obese men are at significantly higher risk of developing colorectal cancer; the distribution of body fat appears to be an important fact, with abdominal obesity measured by waist circumference demonstrating a strong correlation with colon cancer risk. Obesity also modestly increases the risk of women developing postmenopausal breast cancer. The costs of an obese population – direct, but also indirect Obese populations place greater stress upon healthcare systems already struggling to cope with rising expectation on what healthcare systems can deliver, more expensive medical interventions and an increasingly elderly population. The chronic nature of the condition means that obese people consume a greater share of healthcare resources, over a longer period of time. Medical costs for obese individuals are as much as 30% to 40% higher than those with normal weight. An obese individual will on average visit a physician 27% more frequently than someone with a normal weight, and the annual extra medical costs of obesity in the US were estimated to be US$75 bn in 2003 (BMJ Wang). If current demographic trends continue, obesity-related costs are set to double every ten years, and could account for 16%-18% of US Healthcare expenditure by 2030. In the UK, data point to a similar trend, with 650 mn increased annual costs by 2020, and 2 bn higher costs by 2030 (Wang). In addition to the direct medical costs for treating obesity, there are indirect costs to society and economies, which include early retirement and lost or lower productivity. US data suggest a direct correlation between obesity and missed work days in men, with males with a BMI above 40 taking almost six additional sick days each year. Swedish data suggest obese individuals are 1.5-1.9 times more likely to take sick leave than their peers with normal weight. Who provides the solutions? Before we get to the investing implication of this pandemic, we believe it’s worth spending a minute on the impact that reversal of current trends might have, and the role that various parties have played thus far to resolve this. Perhaps slightly depressingly, we believe that pharma companies alone are unlikely to be able to resolve this. Indeed we believe that a majority of this change message needs to come from government policy and social change (as we saw in the 1970s-80s with smoking). What are the benefits if trends reverse? Modest changes can have a dramatic impact on both an individual’s risk profile and society as a whole. A 1% reduction in BMI (approximately losing 1kg of body weight) is estimated to reduce cases of diabetes by around 2 million, and cases of cancer by around 100. However, implementation of these changes will require behavioural changes through health promotion campaigns and policy interventions to address healthy public sector food service policies. But policy and behavioural changes are not easy to implement and take time to take effect. Pharma industry response – encouraging, but not adequate Despite numerous attempts, the pharmaceutical industry has had limited success in addressing the primary cause of obesity (energy imbalance). Current treatments combat the consequences of obesity, e.g., through the management of hypertension, or diabetes. A large number of companies have tried to develop pharmaceuticals to target energy imbalance, but the vast majority have failed owing to serious toxic effects. For example, Sanofi’s Accomplia was abandoned for suicidal ideation, Fen-Phen was withdrawn for serious cardiovascular concerns, and sibutramine was recently withdrawn following cardiovascular safety concerns. 2012 has seen the FDA approval of two new treatments for obesity, when used in conjunction with reduced calorie diets. Both Belviq (Arena Pharmaceuticals) and Qsymia (Vivus) reduce appetite and in some people can induce a negative energy balance. Both products have demonstrated safety signals which are a cause for concern, and patients receiving these products will require careful monitoring by clinicians. But, the FDA’s willingness to approve agents with clear safety signals illustrates the need for effective intervention for obesity. One of the more serious efforts to this end was recently demonstrated by the Australian government, which evaluated several measures aimed at combating this epidemic (see exhibit below). Not surprisingly, nonpharmacological options were found to be more cost-effective in the long term, but are obviously more difficult to implement at a society level. * * * Another, even more dramatic health-related recent intervention was that on behalf of Mike Bloomberg and the city of New York banning sugary drinks in 16 oz containers or more. The problem with government intervention in individual and social level consumption, is that it never works without a proper incentive system. If instead of using negative reinforcement, the government were to use positive reinforcement techniques, and for example offer each American $100/year for every pound kept below the overweight threshold every year, the results would be far more encouraging, and the costs saved in the long run would more than offset initial outlays. Of course, this being the government, it is absolutely certain that corruption and "unintended side-effects" will intervene, that incentives will be perverted by special interests and lobby groups, and the final outcome would be a far worse one than the base case. Which is why, sadly, the obesity epidemic will not be "fixed" in any conventional sense, but like so many other aspects of the current unsustainable socio-economic system, will merely go away on its own once the "weakest links" are eliminated by the various forces of natural (and man-made) selection in play today. Average: 3.555555 Your rating: None Average: 3.6 ( 18 votes) Tweet Login or register to post comments 16668 reads Printer-friendly version Send to friend Similar Articles You Might Enjoy: This Is Your Country On Fat: Presenting 14 Years Of Exponential American Obesity "The Weight Of The Nation": Documenting America's Obesity Epidemic: Part 2 - Choices The REAL Cause of the Global Obesity Epidemic The Global Diabetes Tsunami... And Why America Actually Has It Good Guest Post: The American Diet: Self-Destruction Never Tasted So Good
Rising home values in the face of stagnant incomes Submitted by drhousingbubble on 09/07/2012 16:06 For the first time since September of 2010, nearly two years ago, has the Case Shiller 20 City Index realized a year-over-year gain. Does this signify a sustainable turning point for the market? At this point it is too hard to tell for a couple of reasons. The first has to do with the composition of homes being sold but also, at a more profound level, household income has fallen for well over a decade. Much of the sustained gains have come from astoundingly low interest rates offering buyers more leverage, low available inventory for sale, and a continuation of low down payment mortgages . You will notice that none of these reasons include household incomes rising to meet current prices. It really is unsustainable unless incomes can follow in conjunction. This year, according to the Case Shiller Index home values are now up 3.86 percent. Household incomes are not up. So what justifies this significant move? The CPI is up 1.3 percent so why are overall home values moving up at a rate 3 times higher than the overall index? You also see Millennials taking the brunt of the negative equity situation. Young and underwater Zillow recently came out with data showing that a whopping 48% of homeowners under 40 are in a negative equity position. This rate would look even worse if we considered how many of these homeowners actually bought with say FHA insured 3.5 percent down loans and have a razor thin level of equity. The reality is, we have two groups in the US right now when it comes to housing. You have younger Americans confronting a very tough employment market and purchasing homes during the manic 2000s and you have many older Americans that bought pre-2000s and enjoyed the multi-decade long bull market of the US, including steady rising incomes and home values: Income is absolutely important and as we discussed previously, younger Americans that are in a deeper underwater state also saw the biggest decline in their earnings potential: Source: The Washington Post, Sentier Research So how is it possible that home prices are rising so strongly in spite of weak income growth? First, there is an unusual mix of buying going on. You first have investors competing for a lower amount of distressed inventory. Take a market like Las Vegas were over 50 percent of all sales last month went to all cash buyers, a continuing multi-year trend except inventory is lower now. Cash buyers in Las Vegas are now paying 19 percent more for their summer 2012 purchases versus the purchases made in summer of 2011. For Phoenix 41 percent of buyers paid all cash last month. The vast majority are investors as noted by their absentee status. Nationwide investor buying is a big segment of the market and with falling distressed inventory and people chasing yield, prices have been pushed up as many investors are likely opting to purchase non-distressed homes that carry a higher price tag. The other segment is coming from the low down payment FHA first time buyers. Rates are at incredibly low levels. Interest rates have fallen substantially in the last year. The 30 year fixed rate mortgage has fallen by 28 percent in the last year alone from an already very low level. So even with stalled out incomes, many Americans found that they could afford more house with the same or even lower household income. With slim pickings for inventory, many bid prices up. Think inventory isn’t low? Take a look at this: Source: ISI Group Inventory is at a 30 year low and probably even lower if we had data going further back. Yet as we noted earlier, half of those under 40 are underwater. We discussed that there might be a bounce and slog market as we move along since rising prices will bring more people to the table to unload properties. Banks are methodically dumping distressed real estate . What is concerning overall is the price rise has come from artificial factors. The low interest rates are already having hidden leakage costs in other sectors of the economy . You also condition the market to low down payment loans that are defaulting in mass in spite of rising home values. And of course the low inventory pushes prices higher given access to more leverage via lower interest rates and also investors competing for a smaller pool of properties in a tight market. It would be one thing if household incomes were moving up in tandem with home values. But even this year, home values measured by the Case Shiller are moving at a clip 3 times higher than that of the overall inflation rate. Household income absolutely matters and has been a good metric to use for multiple decades. Only recently have we seen such artificial stimulus in the market where it has the ability to push home values up in spite of slow income growth (i.e., Alt-A or lower quality loans during the mania, low down payment FHA loans and massive levels of investor buying in the current market). The interesting point of rising home values is that it will likely drag out some of the underwater inventory and thus add more supply to the market. Did You Enjoy The Post? Subscribe to Dr. Housing Bubble’s Blog to get updated housing commentary, analysis, and information. Average: 4.4 Your rating: None Average: 4.4 ( 10 votes) Tweet drhousingbubble's blog Login or register to post comments 4479 reads Printer-friendly version Send to friend Similar Articles You Might Enjoy: A theory on the bounce and slog housing market. The resurgence of the low down payment market The twin lost decades in housing and stocks Watch The NAR's Larry Yun Explain The Pending Home Sales Miss And The Downtrend Returns: Inflation Disappoints As Empire Manufacturing Posts First Sub-Zero Print Since October 2011
Kermit the Frog is puppeteer Jim Henson 's most famous Muppet creation, first introduced in 1955. He is the protagonist of many Muppet projects, most notably as the host of The Muppet Show , and has appeared in various sketches on Sesame Street , in commercials and in public service announcements over the years. Kermit was performed by Henson until his death in 1990. Since then, Kermit has been performed by Steve Whitmire . He was voiced by Frank Welker in Muppet Babies and occasionally in other animation projects. Kermit performed the hit single " The Rainbow Connection " in 1979 for The Muppet Movie , the first feature-length film featuring Henson's Muppets. The song reached No. 25 on the Billboard Hot 100 . Kermit's iconic look and voice have been recognizable worldwide since, and in 2006, the character was credited as the author of Before You Leap: A Frog's Eye View of Life's Greatest Lessons , which is an "autobiography" told from the perspective of the character himself.
标签: First经管大学堂：名校名师名课
京公网安备 11010802022788号
论坛法律顾问：王进律师
知识产权保护声明
免责及隐私声明
