Commercial Real-Estate Crisis Squabble

For the past few weeks, financial news has been mixed on commercial real estate.  On the one side, fear mongers like Randall Zisler expect crisis in the next few years.  The meat of their argument is that high default rates and high unemployment will keep the market depressed.  On the other side, high profile investors like Sam Zell  say that the crisis is a myth. 

I’m leaning toward Zell here, and agree with Sheryl Nance-Nash.  She referenced a report that found commercial real estate markets are likely to bottom in 2010.  Notice the verb there- bottom, not crash.  The report calls 2010 through 2012 a “cyclical low” period in the market.  In other words, there will be great opportunities for prudent investors in the next few years.  As the rest of the economy picks back up, capital will flow into commercial real estate and bring prices back up to normal, or at least 70 percent of recent highs.  The report is worth taking a look at.

The federal propensity for bail out clouds the issue.  The FDIC announced last week that it would allow banks to report underperforming loans as performing.  Many properties are worth less than the debt owed on them, and this legislation gives banks leeway for renegotiation.  There is little evidence on how much refinancing is actually taking place.  Instead of selling properties off, banks are keeping them on the books.  As long as seller is kept from buyer, the market is on freeze.  In the short-term this policy prevents a crisis by avoiding a panicked sell-off.  However, the regulation prevents the market from functioning, perhaps even prolonging recovery in the long-term.

Fed Policy

Don Bauder at the San Diego Reader links, correctly, the troubled commercial real estate market in California with its budget problem.  He then argues that recent stock gains are not based on ‘reality’ but a low federal funds rate: 

“The Journal’s lead sub-headline Tuesday morning was “Cheap Money Sends Shares to 2009 High” — a stark warning that liquidity is buoying various markets, not reality. The Federal Reserve promises to keep interest rates around zero for the indefinite future. This emboldens investors to gamble…. — watch out.”

Under Greenspan, this was a fair argument.   However, today we are at the ‘zero-lower bound’ of interest rate policy. Any increase in the funds rate is seen as devastating for recovery. It’s important to recognize that the source of growth today may not be interst rate policy- since monetary policy has become ineffective.  Also, liquidity is welcomed by the Fed during recessionary periods.

Thomas J. Powell

 

 

 

Real Estate Wrap-Up and the RIA

Residential Real Estate  

There are dozens of reasons why the residential real estate market bubbled and exploded, causing the ensuing credit crisis and economic strife. The popularity of loans requiring no documentation, the easy access to sub-prime loans and the Federal Reserve’s decision to keep interest rates low all intertwined to fuel the housing crisis. The housing bubble was also inflated by Wall Street’s ability to package and sell mortgages in large pools. Now, after struggling to repair the housing market for more than a year, we are seeing improvements that are unveiling extraordinary investment opportunities in residential real estate.

It appears we have hit the bottom of the housing market trough. Housing prices found some stabilization, although the prices are still close to the lowest they have been all decade. But, the collapse took years to build and expecting a complete turnaround in 2009 is unrealistic. The real promise in housing is in the future. Getting your money into the market now is optimal because of low prices and reasonable mortgage rates. Plus, there will continue to be tax relief with the recent Obama-endorsed home-buyers’ tax credit extension—which is planned to be available for repeat buyers who have lived in their prior residence for at least five years.

The United States should see a gradual increase in home sales throughout 2010, but the residential market will most likely not witness a return to “normalcy” until 2011. According to Steve Bergsman, author of “After the Fall, Opportunities and Strategies for Real Estate Investing in the Coming Decade,” “When a bubble market bursts, left behind is a lot of carnage and it takes about three years for the markets just to get a handle on the mess.”[1]

The three-year anniversary of the housing collapse is fast approaching and a number of high-profile reports have been published this month that suggest the residential housing market is already improving. The Case-Shiller index, which tracks variations in the values of houses in 20 U.S. metropolitan areas, showed an increase of 2.9 percent in the second quarter of 2009. In the first quarter it was down 7.9 percent. Two reports released by the Commerce Department last week suggest that while the overall economy continues on a wobbly path toward recovery, the housing industry is experiencing a number of positive signs. For example, “The supply of new homes was at 7.5 months in September, down from 9.5 months in May.”

While residential inventory appears to be slimming, foreclosure rates continue to mount in multiple areas across the country. With a significant number of Option ARMs set to reset over the next several months, many cities will continue to experience record-setting foreclosure levels.  

However, foreclosures are increasing in different cities than those affected in the last quarters of 2008.  Rates appear to be easing in the cities that were hit hardest by the housing collapse and rising in major metro areas in other states. This suggests that the cities previously overrun with foreclosures have found ways to combat the problem and are gradually making progress.

A continuing stream of foreclosures may keep the residential inventory plump, and prices could remain stable over the next couple quarters. But, as inventory shrinks, so too will the abundance of quality investment opportunities. With the residential real estate market now hovering around the bottom, now is the right time to invest.

Commercial Real Estate: No Reason to Panic

While it appears that we have already witnessed the worst of the residential real-estate collapse, we are preparing for the brunt of the crash in commercial real estate. The commercial real-estate industry has taken the place of residential real estate as the breeding ground for widespread fear. Daily reports suggest the commercial real estate storm will be more severe than the one that struck residential housing. Instead of causing another shipwreck, our economy’s commercial woes may prove to be more of an anchor that puts an imposing drag on our recovery.

The combination of job losses, store closings, rising vacancies and drastic cost-cutting measures puts commercial real estate in a serious bind. However, knowing their mortgages will soon come due or reset, owners and managers of office buildings, shopping centers, hotels and apartment complexes have had ample time to prepare for upcoming obstacles.

 Owners of commercial real estate are not backed into a corner. Banks prefer options that keep mortgage payments flowing. Therefore, banks are willing to work with borrowers to find solutions, even though bundled commercial mortgages will add to the difficulty of negotiations. Securing loan payments is not entirely the responsibility of banks or those who hold investments in pools of bundled loans. The owners of commercial buildings originally took on the responsibility and many of them are actively working to find solutions to keep their properties operating. Many property owners will continue to make their payments either because they have adapted their strategies to fit the difficult times, or because they have explored creative ways to bring in extra income. Of course, some number of defaults will be inevitable. Some of those property owners who are unable to acquire loan restructuring or extensions will view a loan default as their best option.

As with the residential real estate debacle, the government is sure to intervene in an attempt to keep our economy from falling into another dark hole. For example, the already-in-place Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) supports the issuance of asset-backed securities in order to help small businesses meet their credit needs. The TALF is one of a handful of sluggish government efforts that was created to help provide a crutch for the commercial real-estate industry.

Commercial real estate will continue to tug on recovery efforts, but it is not likely to cause the amount of damage we witnessed during the residential collapse. The time to invest is not when everyone shows interest in an asset. A staple to wise investing has always been buying low and selling high. The commercial real estate market has produced sound investments in the past and will once again flourish. Getting into the market in times of success is more costly, the opportunities are scarcer and the rewards are not as fruitful. The best time to invest is when the masses are fearful, and the masses are easily spooked by commercial real estate right now.

The Benefits of Hiring Professionals

As is the case when taking on any money-making venture, the waters are difficult to navigate alone. We all want to make investments that are conducive to both our current financial situation and our future goals. Investing with a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) helps eliminate the series of headaches that come with making sound investment decisions.

Hiring a RIA has a number of benefits. For instance, a RIA can take on the following responsibilities:

• Provide objective investment and financial advice
• Set achievable financial and personal goals
• Take into account all of the factors that influence your current financial situation (your assets, liabilities, income, insurance, taxes, etc.) and provide a comprehensive analysis of where improvements can be made. Also, this helps to guide your investment plans and retirement goals
• Provide consistent investment consultation based on your fluctuating savings, investment selections and asset allocation

Before hiring a RIA, you should also be able to answer the following questions:

• What services do you need? Can your potential RIA deliver these services or are there any limitations on what they can deliver?
• What experience does the RIA have in dealing with investors in your situation?
• Has the RIA ever been disciplined by a government regulator for unethical behavior?
• What services are you paying for and how much do those services cost?
• How does the RIA plan on getting paid and are you comfortable with this payment method?
• RIAs are required to register with either the SEC or their state securities agency, depending on their size. It is imperative to ask for proof of their registration

There are a number of professionals who can provide guidance for your investment strategies. Hiring a RIA can help to take the frustration out of the investment process and help you avoid many of the common roadblocks. The true value of a RIA is their ability to thoroughly understand your overall financial goals and provide professional investment advice that is consistent with those goals.

 All My Best,

Thomas J. Powell

---

[1] Bergsman, Steve. After the Fall: Opportunities and Strategies for Real Estate Investing in the Coming Decade. Wiley, 2009.

Pulling the Unemployed off the Ropes and Into the Fight

As markets continue to produce signs of stabilization over the next quarter, it is unlikely that unemployment figures will show much improvement. With figures the highest they have been in more than 25 years, unemployment appears to have neared its peak. Lowering the rate to levels our economy can adequately support will prove to be a daunting task. But, with a little encouragement the corporate sector certainly has the power to handle it.
Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was quoted by multiple major news sources after he told the Brookings Institute, “The recession is likely over at this point.” According to Bernanke, the economy appears to be growing, but not at a pace that will be sufficient for lowering the unemployment rate. Historically, economic upturns after recessions have been stamped with consumer demand. This time around, however, many Americans may not have the ability to help lead a recovery because they have been completely wiped out financially.
In order to spur consumer-led demand, the corporate sector will again have to make jobs readily available. The unemployed are not the kind of consumers that are needed to invigorate our economy and induce growth. We do not need to turn to an economics textbook to tell us that our broken economic cycle can be patched with more available jobs—this much we know.
Corporations large and small have been forced to adapt to this constricted economy and the majority of them were required to do so through downsizing. Now, company leaders are reluctant to increase their workforce until they are confident there is a significant increase in demand for their products and services. But, one strong possibility that could provide the encouragement needed to get company leaders hiring again is a temporary change in corporate tax policy.
A temporary tax break aimed at equaling the payroll costs of adding new employees would strip the risk for companies that are awaiting a full-blown recovery before they hire. Plus, according to a recent article published in The Wall Street Journal:
“The impact of a two-year program on the federal deficit would be relatively modest. Using a conservative set of assumptions, an $18 billion annual program, which represents 10% of estimated corporate tax receipts in the next fiscal year could create nearly 600,000 good-paying jobs …”

Before they commit to hiring, companies are waiting for consumers to spend. But, before consumers commit to spending, they are waiting for companies to hire. The cycle is stagnant and will remain so until one side is persuaded to change their behavior. A government-sponsored tax break for companies that agree to hire could be the first action taken during this recession that encourages our country’s government, companies and individuals to work together.

Capital River is Frozen; We Can Thaw it

Because of the severe impact of the recession, the stream of capital that once flooded our economy has been reduced to a trickle. The majority of the flow evaporated when banks were forced by the Fed to tighten their lending standards as delinquent loans polluted their books. Consequently, failing to restore the flow is making it extremely difficult for the Fed to take progressive measures toward recovery and has the potential to drop us back into another recession.
According to Bloomberg.com:
“The Fed’s second-quarter survey of senior loan officers, released Aug. 17, showed U.S. banks tightened standards on all types of loans and said they expect to maintain strict criteria on lending until at least the second half of 2010.”

With dropping values in commercial real estate, rising unemployment numbers and a seemingly unending onslaught of delinquent mortgages; banks are not lacking reasons to practice strict lending measures. Earlier this year, through a series of stress tests, the Fed found that 19 of the country’s largest banks needed $75 billion in new capital to protect themselves from mounting losses.
With all of my recent writings and blog postings concerning the benefits of getting our private capital back in the game, I am by no means hiding my agenda for restoring capital flow. The economy will only be repaired once the flow of capital is rejuvenated. It is much easier to lead capital tributaries back into the main stream if they are first flowing. Over the next couple of quarters, banks will continue to deleverage and work toward a balanced lending system. But, without raising more private capital, banks will not be able to establish a lending system that enables credit-worthy individuals and businesses to acquire reasonable loans; which puts an enormous restraint on economic progress.
Our economy is already positioned to attempt to force a jobless recovery, which will certainly create complications in sustaining a recovery. Trying to force a credit-less recovery will only exacerbate our struggles. Dragging our banks through a painful recovery without sufficient capital will only position them to break and lead us right back through more of the same. By identifying ways to put our private capital back into the equation we are positioning our financial system to rise from this recession stronger and more efficient. By investing in private enterprise, we are sparking long-term, mutually-beneficial relationships between capital-producing businesses and banks (while also earning gracious returns on our initial investments). Now is the time to put our private capital back to work.

Without Our Capital, Banks Get the Axe

Our private capital plays an integral part in our local economies—which then all collectively have crucial roles in our country’s financial stability. Because banks have become over-reliant on easy credit, they are now struggling to keep their businesses running by raising capital the old fashioned way. Without our capital, our banks (and more importantly our communities) cannot function properly. Not able to fulfill their debt obligations, banks are closing their doors and falling under the control of the FDIC; which “estimates bank failures will cost the fund about $70 billion through 2013.”
Banks are necessary to ensure that money circulates in our communities. They distribute the money of their depositors to borrowers who have a worthwhile purpose for the money. The banks secure our savings and lend the money to companies or individuals. Banks provide a convenient location for borrowers to acquire funds. Without banks, companies would find it very difficult to borrow large sums of money.
While banks perform their role as intermediaries, they also essentially increase the supply of money. By accepting deposits from its customers and loaning the money to worthy borrowers, banks “create” money. Consider the following simple example. Imagine a customer deposits $20,000 into her bank account. Even though the bills are no longer in circulation, the amount of money in our country does not change as a result of the deposit. Allowing the money to simply sit in the bank’s safe would not earn the bank anything. Therefore, the bank lends $10,000 to an entrepreneur in return for an additional interest fee. The depositor still has a $20,000 credit in her account and the entrepreneur has $10,000, therefore the money supply has increased by $10,000. The entrepreneur purchases supplies with the money and creates a product that he sells for a profit. As long as banks have depositors, they are able play their crucial role of increasing the money supply by making funds available to those looking to find backing for their ventures.
The word “bank” itself is derived from the Italian word “banca,” which referred to the table on which coins were counted and exchanged in the middle ages. “Bancarotta,” from which the word “bankrupt” was derived, means “broken bank.” Originally, if a banker was unable to pay his debts, the authorities arrived to smash his table in half with an axe. Today, the FDIC seizes failed banks and seeks buyers for their branches, deposits and faulty loans—all, for some reason, without smashing anything with an axe.

All my best,

Thomas J. Powell

 

 

Ghost of Recessions Past

Maybe this is all a bad dream, and like Dickens’ Ebenezer Scrooge, a voice from the past is warning financial regulators.
Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker testified in front of the House Financial Services Committee today. Look at the excerpt from his prepared statement. He warns that the Fed’s reaction to the recent crisis may actually increase the likelihood of future collapse. By creating a safety net for the too-big-to fail banks, Volcker argues, we are exposing the financial system to more risk!
Paul Volcker is no stranger to economic crisis. As head of the fed from 1979-1987, Volcker helped steer the economy out of the infamous ‘stagflation’ of the late 1970s. Stagflation was an economic anomaly: high unemployment combined with inflation and negative growth rates. Many hail Reagan’s deregulatory policies as the solution. But this was only a piece of the puzzle. Volcker headed the Fed at a time when the structure of the world economy was undergoing an historic shift. The international monetary system had collapsed and, like today, monetary policy was ineffective at solving the nation’s problems. Volcker oversaw a dynamic shift in how we value currencies and conduct monetary policy.
Why is all this important? Because 82-year-old Volcker is saying the same thing I am. Instead of looking at real changes to the system itself, like Volcker did, regulators continue to recklessly throw money at the problem. Fortunately for us, we are not facing stagflation. The problem today is the steady deflation of our wealth. However, the lesson is the same: let’s look at ways to change the system instead of perpetuating the cycle with safety nets. Volcker suggested re-instating Glass-Steagall. This should reduce big bank’s incentives to gamble our wealth away.
I also agree with his stance that smaller institutions are getting squeezed out of the economy. If the government only backs a small handful of participants, how will smaller private firms compete? Without those firms we will never return to prosperity.
So let’s take a minute to heed Volcker’s advice. It’s more than Obama is doing. Volcker may be one of the president’s chief advisors, but he’s not listening. Unlike Dickens’ tale, this is not a dream. I think Volcker’s advice will haunt the halls in Washington for a long time.

Tom

Recession and Recovery- Mixed Signals

Today’s news from the Fed has been optimistic. Bernanke says the recession might be over, but what does that mean for us? In technical terms, a recession is two consecutive quarters of zero growth. It looks like we are beating that trend. So what? Cheer the administration, forget about the troubled financial industry and move on right? Wrong. Krugman points out that, although the recession is technically ending, we’re not out of the woods yet. Unemployment, as expected, will remain high for years to come. Compared to where we were two years ago, the US faces an enormous output gap, something around a trillion dollars a year. According to Condgon from the IMF, the broader monetary base has been shrinking. The Fed’s insistence on boosting capital ratio’s may be back firing here: if banks are required to increase capital ratio’s there is less to lend, and subsequently a decreased capacity to grow. Despite decent news from Bernanke, a shrinking money supply points to deflation. Instead of recovery, we may be looking at a double-dip recession. That’s when we start to recover, only to fall flat again.
How do we avoid another, possibly deeper recession? Krugman argues for more stimulus. Condgon expects monetary easing. I must reiterate my core values here. The recovery will come when smaller firms have adequate access to capital. Private capital will pull us out, not more stimulus. Quantitative easing has brought us to near-zero interest rates with no affect on output. How exactly is monetary policy going to work if money continues to contract? As for fiscal stimulus, wouldn’t that bring us back to where we are now, a slow recovery with continued high unemployment?
Let’s get away from big government bail-out schemes and let capitalism do its job. In today’s WSJ, Cochrane and Zingales argue against the too-big-to-fail doctrine. If banks don’t fail, bankers have no incentive to react to risk. It’s called moral hazard- tails I win, heads you loose. The too-big-to fail doctrine flies in the face of a hundred years of economic theory. One of capitalism’s grand fathers, Joseph Schumpeter, argued for “creative destruction,” a process that enables the most efficient distribution of capital. If banks cannot fail, the industry cannot correct itself. The system has forgotten Schumpeter. It no longer rewards the most productive enterprises. Instead, the government has transferred trillions of dollars to failed enterprises. The result isn’t capitalism, but some corrupt form of corporate banditry.

All my best,

Thomas J Powell