Why it is hard to imagine consumption reigniting.

Mark Thoma wonders about whether consumption will come back any time soon.

A graph making the rounds uses the Federal Flow of Funds data to look at the ratio of Household Debt to GDP--the ratio rose from around 60 percent as recently as 15 years ago to more than 100 percent now. If households begin reducing their leverage back toward the long-term average, it will depress consumption for three reasons:

Debt service payments will rise when interest rates rise, and so discretionary income will be lower than it was when households had less leverage ( we are getting some relief right now because of very low interest rates on debt tied to LIBOR or the prime rate).

Households will not take on new borrowing to support spending.

Households will in fact be amortizing their current debt (meaning they won't spend).

The counter-argument is that average household net worth relative to GDP remains quite normal by historical standards. But here is where the skewed distribution of wealth is a problem. I am reasonably sure that when the next Survey of Consumer Finances is released for 2010, median household net worth will be down. Corelogic says that one in four households with mortgages has negative home equity--this would be about 18 percent of owner households (about 30 percent of owners have no mortgage). If we combine this with the fact that 1/3 of the country rents, this means that the median households has little or no home equity. The median household is not loaded with financial assets, either. According to the 2007 Survey of Consumer Finances, only half of families have a retirement account, and only 21 percent owned stocks. Put this all together, the median household is not in great shape financially, and the median household consumes a higher share of its income than higher income households.

One more back of the envelope calculation on getting us back to a steady state: suppose the steady state household debt to GDP ratio is 70 percent. If the national economy uses 5 percent of its income to pay down that debt (which is about 7.5 percent of current consumption), at an interest rate of 8 percent, it would take 9.2 years to de-lever down to the steady state ratio.

[Update: the above back of the envelope assumes six percent nominal growth. If nominal growth is less, it will take longer].

Homeowners Associations contribute to Global Warming

Over the holidays, I have learned from my parents that there are homeowners associations that ban drying clothes on clotheslines and make it difficult to place solar panels on houses. I did a google search on the issue, and learned to such hostility toward environmentally friendly practices is fairly widespread.

This sort of thing has got to stop. While apparently some states have passed laws that ban homeowners associations from prohibiting solar, the laws are sufficiently vague that they can be circumvented.

Dubai, Academic Freedom, and Real Estate

Sometime around 2006, when I was an Associate Dean at George Washington University, I was asked to be part of a team to go to Dubai to explore the possibility of opening a degree program there. After spending three or four days there and running some financials, our team decided that unless GW got a heavy subsidy from Dubai, it was economically a non-starter for us to set up something. Our team's judgments is looking pretty good right now.

The more interesting part of the story, though, is a conversation I had with a professor at one of the universities there. I asked about academic freedom in Dubai, and he said there was plenty. I then asked whether it would be OK to raise in class a discussion about whether the Emir had shown good judgment in building Burj Dubai, the still incomplete tallest skyscraper in the world. The look on his face told me all I needed to know.

The Pleasures of Teaching

Last night, I heard 10 presentations from my MBAs on TARP, TALF, PPIP and HAMP. I learned at least one thing from every one of them.

Shiraz Allidina (attribution corrected) creates a nice indicator of over-leverage in commercial real estate.

He uses the Federal Flow of Funds to look at Commercial Real Estate Loans Outstanding as a fraction of GDP. When the share goes well above the long term mean, bad stuff in commercial real estate seems to ensue.

Eichholtz, Kok and Quigley find Economic Value from Green Buildings

This is forthcoming in AER:

This paper provides the first credible evidence on the economic value of the certification of green buildings-- value derived from impersonal market transactions rather thanengineering estimates. For some 10,000 subject and control buildings, we match publicly available information on the addresses of Energy Star and LEED-rated office buildings to the characteristics of these buildings, their rental rates and selling prices. We find that buildings with a green rating command rental rates that are roughly three percent higher per square foot than otherwise identical buildings - controlling for the quality and the specific location of office buildings. Ceteris paribus, premiums in effective rents are even higher - above six percent. Selling prices of green buildings are higher by about 16 percent. For the Energy-Star-certified buildings in this sample, we subsequently obtained detailed estimates of site and source energy usage from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Our analysis establishes that variations in the premium for green office buildings are systematically related to their energy-saving characteristics. For example, an increase of ten percent in the site energy utilization efficiency of a green building is associated with a two percent increase in selling price - over and above the 16 percent premium for a labeled building. Further calculations suggest that a one dollar saving in energy costs from increased thermal efficiency yields roughly eighteen dollars in the increased valuation of an Energy-Star certified building.

I find the value results compelling; the rent results less so (the t-stat on their best specification is not that impressive given their large sample size). But in any event, an important contribution.

Is there room for more than one Chicago?

Last weekend, for the first time since leaving the Midwest in 2002, I spent time enjoying Chicago. The best part was visiting my daughter, but the second best part was seeing Millennium Park, the New Modern Wing of the Art Institute, and just plain walking around and eating in Chicago.

Within one-half mile of Lake Michigan, from Cermak Road on the South to the Evanston city limit on the North, Chicago is an Urbanist's dream. It is walkable, it has more impressive urban landscapes than any other city I know, transit is good, there is well-tended and contiguous green space, and, of course, the magnificent lakefront.

So why don't we have more Chicagos? Part of the reason is that countries have systems of cities, whose size seems to kind-of-sort-of follow Zipf's law, and so there is room for a limited number of cities of Chicago's size. But one could ask why we don't see Chicago in miniature more often. To the extent that it is preferences--that there are only a limited number of us who like the features of places like Chicago--the fact that there are few Chicagos is nothing to worry about.

But I suspect that it has to do more with policies--zoning that requires separation of uses, low densities, large setbacks, etc. Particularly problematic is the hostility many communities show toward multi-family housing, and the silliness of greenspace requirements that encourages many little playgrounds but fails to develop large parks. The again, policies are put into place by elected officials, so maybe the absence of Chicagos does reflect preferences (or prejudices). And that's too bad.

If only we knew ...

The basic problem with valuing underwater loans is that borrowers are heterogeneous. Some borrowers are going to walk away from their mortgages; from the standpoint of financial institutions, it would be better to simply write down their mortgage balance, swap the value of the debt above the mortgage balance for equity, and avoid foreclosure.

But other borrowers insist on paying their mortgages, no matter what. These mortgages continue to be worth something like their par value. Financial institutions do not want to modify their loans. But if those who pay their mortgages know that those who don't will get a modification, they will change their behavior.

So the optimal program (from the lender's perspective) would be one that identifies those who wouldn't repay, and then grant those people a secret modification. I can't figure out how to either (1) how to do the identification or (2) write to contract binding the borrower to secrecy.

Does the MIT transactions based commercial real estate index imply that commercial real estate is at bottom?

I was surfing the MIT CRE web site this afternoon, and the following picture caught my eye:



The MIT index is a hedonic transactions based index based sales from the NCREIF index, and it attempts to find price movements of a "typical" property. The interesting thing is that the Moody's Commercial Property Index is still falling:



So the question is whether the MIT TPI is a leading indicator. My sense is actually that Apartments and Industrial Real Estate will come out of this thing earlier than other generic types, but I am not sure that anything is really at bottom yet. In particular, the MIT folks are showing that demand and supply are coming closer to lining up, but there is still excess supply nationally in the industrial, office and retail sectors.

The problem with Goldman bonuses

Beyond the generic problem that bonuses are usually based on an un-risk-adjusted IRR, the problem with bonus for banks in general, and Goldman in particular, is that the government is backing short-term bank borrowing, and so banks can borrow at very depressed rates and make a lot of money on spreads. This seems more like playing the government than playing the market.

Fighting the last war

At the ULI meetings, I am hearing that banks are not willing to repeat their behavior in the last down market (the early 1990s): they are afraid that if they sell their assets--commercial real estate loans--at a discount, they will miss out on upside opportunity. Instead, they are "extending and pretending," in the hope that values will rebound to levels above mortgage balances. I overheard one person say, "cap rates have to go back down again. right?"

Not necessarily. This paper by Phillip Connor and Yougo Lang shows that cap rates tend to stay in the eight range over the long term--to think they will return to the fives is almost certainly unrealistic. Even if net operating income had stayed constant--and it has fallen--the increase in cap rates from 5 to 8 implies a 37.5 percent reduction in value. It is going to be a long time before loans with LTVs at origination in excess of 75 percent will be right-side-up again.

We may be in bad shape fiscally, but at least we're happy (h/t Richard Florida)

According to Gallup, six of the country's 10 happiest congressional districts are in California. The happiest, the California 14th, is between San Francisco and Silicon Valley.

I live in the 49th happiest district; the least happy is the Kentucky 5th, in Appalachia. Makes sense.

Never thought I would live to see the day...

..that a politician would present a powerpoint that included a slide on the "lemons problem."

The Vice-President of Taiwan, Vincent Siew, was discussing the problem of trying to get that country's financial institutions to disgorge their bad assets. Amazing. No wonder it is such an impressive place.

Taipei has among the best public transit systems in the world

The MRT (heavy rail) system is fast, comprehensive and clean. It is busy in the middle of the day, suggesting feasibility.



The buses are very good too, and cost only about $0.45 US to ride. There are also lots of reasonably priced taxis. Of course, the fact that Taipei is among the world's densest cities helps make this all work.

Ten Facts about California

For pictures, go here. Thanks to Matt Moore for research assistance.

(1) Family of four median income in California ranks 15th among the states. Regardless of how income is measured, in California it is somewhat above average, but not extraordinarily so.

(2) Among the 50 states, California ranks 4th in per capita spending; add DC, and it ranks 5th.

(3) Per capita spending on K-12 education is about average.

(4) California's high school graduation rate is 10th from the bottom.

(5) This can be explained partially by the fact that California leads the nation in foreign born population.

(6) But even after controlling for foreign born population, educational attainment in California is average.

(7) California's incarceration rate is a bit above average, but not extraordinary by US standards.

(8) California relies less on property tax revenue to finance its government than the average state. Economists generally find the property tax to be less distortionary and unstable than other types of taxes.

(9) in 2005-06 (the last year for which I have data), California had more net business creation than any other state. After scaling for size, California's business creation was comparable to Texas'.

(10) California relies disproportionately on Information Technology and Professional and Technical Services for employment. These are high paying jobs that require a well educated labor force.

Is the Tax Credit + FHA a toxic combination?

It would be churlish not to think today's strong existing home numbers were good. But there is an aspect of it that worries me.

The tax credit is $8000. FHA loans require 3.5 percent down payments. Consider the position of an unscrupulous investor in housing. He gets someone to front for him as a first time buyer on a $200,000 house. He puts $7,000 down, and then collects the $8,000 credit. He pays the front person a commission of $500. So the investor gets $500 plus the house. If the house goes up in value, he sells; if not, he walks.

Of course, we have no recent experience with this kind of behavior....

I guest post at Paul Romer's charter city blog

The post begins:

Hong Kong, Singapore and Korea experienced great economic success: all have per capita GDP that is at least seven times higher than in 1960 (see Penn World Table for more information). All three economies also came to be relatively well housed. While we cannot draw a uniform lesson from their experiences, it is worthwhile to examine each case for clues about successful housing development...

Why government spending makes people angry

I was listening in to some proposals for building Section 42 Low Income Housing Tax Credit housing the other day. I heard three proposals: the construction cost per unit being proposed was between 400K to 500k.

It is expensive to build in LA, but downtown has luxury condos selling for less than 400K right now. The median price of a house in Southern California is around $275,000. I am all for providing poor people with good housing, but we could do it a lot more cheaply by buying existing houses and renting them out then building new units whose prices are beyond what a median income household in LA could ever expect to afford.

The reason this sort of thing bothers me is because I do think there is a role for government to do things, such as provide education, health care and networks (roads, sewers, etc.). But for this to happen, government must demonstrate that it spends money well. Building "low-income" housing for $400K a unit does not inspire confidence.

Can Corporate CEOs justify private jet travel?

The Washington Post had a story today about CEO perks at rescued banks. Among the most common, of course, is the use of a private jet for private purposes. But this begs a more fundamental question: is it possible to justify the use of private jets for business purposes?

I picked one CEO at random to try to figure it out. Dieter E. Zetsche, the CEO of Damler Benz, gets paid about $3 million per year (which actually seems reasonable to me, in light of his responsibilities). Let's say the typical CEO works 60 hours a week, 50 weeks per year. This means Zetsche earns about $1000 per hour.

I am going to take as a given that it is worth upgrading the CEO to first class on a commercial flight--it is hard to work while flying in coach, so on a round trip cross country flight, giving the CEO a reasonable environment for work is worth about $10K. The marginal cost of round trip first class tickets is a lot less than that.

Most of the time saving from flying a private jet comes at the airport. I got to fly on a corporate jet once (confession: it is fun). One drives right up to the plane and walks on--no ticket counter, no security. So let's say time saved at the airport on both ends of a round trip is 4 hours: $4000. According to one source, the cost of flying a private jet ranges from $1800 to $5000 per hour. Let's just use $2500. It takes about 5 hours to fly from LA to New York, so round trip, that it $25,000. Let's say the CEO take someone with him/her. Now the cost is down to $12,500 per person.

I just checked on Kayak, and first class airfare from NY to Los Angeles is $2250 on Virgin and Delta. So the marginal cost of the private plane is about $8,000, and the benefit is around $4,000. And of course the cost benefit calculation for the second person is even worse.

I do understand that CEO's on occasion need to go places without commercial airports, and that the time spent driving from a commercial airport to these places might make the private jet pencil out. But they could use shared ownership, or net jets, to take care of those cases. Most of the time, they should fly with the rest of us.

USC planning student Alexene Farol writes about why public transit is hard for LA

Lex Rail writes (h/t Lisa Schweitzer):

The biggest complaint I repeatedly hear about L.A. is that it has a poor public transportation system. News flash: that's true, we're not New York or Tokyo by any means. Yet I often feel compelled to protect L.A. from empty criticism. The people who complain about L.A.'s public transportation system are complaining due to what I see as three major factors: 1) the effect of hearing other people complain (to which I have nothing truly helpful to contribute), 2) the absence of a transportation culture, like the subway-state-of-mind of New York City or even the let's-take-BART-to-the-Giant's-game compulsion in San Francisco, and finally, 3) the feeling of disorder and general lack of safety surrounding the systems we already have. Here's my take on those things.

So let's face it: in Los Angeles, we drive our cars. Everywhere, all day, every day. We jam up our freeways and complain about commutes and argue about congestion but still, we drive our cars. Historically speaking, there is a reason for this. East Coast cities were designed with pedestrians in mind; they are planned to some extent, but largely that American grid pattern wasn't implemented until we started growing westward. People still had few options but to walk when those cities began to develop and subsequently explode in population; hence those cities have easily identifiable centers. Like many European cities, the center is actually in the middle, creating a smaller but more concentrated radius of things-that-are-important-to-get-to: financial buildings and offices, cultural offerings, commercial centers, etc. Los Angeles, however, is a totally different breed of city. Most significantly, by the time L.A. took off in terms of population, Americans were falling in love with the automobile. (Isn't it just like a bad romance novel? The honeymoon period is magical and then we find out that the objects of our affections are shredding the ozone layer. Typical.) This city is not designed for pedestrians but for vehicles, which explains our lack of green space and, obviously, our general difficulties with creating a truly cohesive transportation network. Additionally, L.A. is a highly stratified city, partially because it contains so many levels of specialization and industry. L.A. has many centers - Westwood, the financial district, etc. - and subsequently has a harder time connecting them except by vehicle lanes. Given that information, it's hardly surprising that our public transportation appears subpar. Do you realize how much harder that task is for L.A. than for New York? The concept of reducing VMT (vehicle miles traveled) is a very new concept that is miles away from what L.A. was really planned for. Oh and while we're facing facts, don't lie: those of you who are complaining, you wouldn't ride public transportation anyway.

And why wouldn't you ride public transportation in L.A.? Because there's no guarantee that you'll be as safe as you would be if you were driving. Many of the complainers are students I go to school with, and further, many of those are members of my sorority. This is where the AYF (Attractive Young Female, or as Michael Jackson might say, PYT) factor comes in. Pretty girls are the best way to judge the success of a public transportation system, because they are a) the most noticeable and b) the most vulnerable, for either real or imagined reasons. Pretty girls will not ride public transportation if they don't feel safe. So here we reach another issue with L.A. public transportation: the pretty girls don't trust it. Now part of that, I think, is that these PYTs are expecting the hip subway culture that is not typical of Los Angeles, and as I said earlier, there's nothing we can do about that. They're also expecting fancy light rails with Starbucks and Yogurtland in them. Here's the problem with that, though: who rides public transportation in L.A.? Largely it's the low-income minority population, and they're not riding the fancy light rails. They're riding the derelict, overcrowded buses - the non-glamorous option, and thus, the one with less funding. There are no PYTs on these, nor are there likely to be while they remain in that state. And L.A., in all its innovative glory, continues to invest in highway expansions that don't work or rail lines with low ridership because that's what the PYTs - and higher income residents - want. In the meantime, we force our bus riders to suffer inadequate resources while we develop for the people who complain and yet do not provide ridership.

I've talked for a while now, so in conclusion: to the city of L.A., please put more money into the bus systems. Make the bus stops safer, clean them up - throw in a Yogurtland if you want - invest in better, more fuel-efficient buses, and make sure the buses are always reliable. Maybe you'll attract more people to them; but even if you don't, at least we won't shove the majority of our population into grimy

outdated machines.