4 Questions for Bruce Krasting

Bruce Krasting is a 25-year Wall St. vet, and runs one of my favorite finance/econ blogs.

#1 – If you were advising President Obama, what would your #1 economic action item be? Ignore political viability, if possible.

On a “big picture” basis I would set an agenda that was clearly moving in a direction of unwinding many/all of the emergency measures that were introduced in 08. For confidence to be restored we have to get the sense that the crisis is behind us. There is nothing that can be done “tomorrow” that can magically restore home values and reduce unemployment. Bernanke will try to save the day with QE-2, but it will not work any better than QE-1 did. A short term benefit at most. Same with fiscal policy. We can have another stimulus and borrow another $1 trillion. That would give us a few quarters more of anemic growth. But after that we would fall off the shelf when the life support ends. Our policies appear to me to be a bridge to no-where. A smooth ride till the end of the ramp and then a crash.

I think the Europeans have it closer to “right” than we do. They are moving in the direction that I think is better if one is looking out five years and asking, “What do we want to look like?” We are headed in the direction of Japan. We will have 1% growth (disaster) and debt to GDP of 150% (death).

But you asked a narrow question. What would I do?

I think we do need a stimulus. But it has to be different this time. We need the private sector to pick up the slack. So let’s give them a chance. I want a one year (18 months?) Payroll tax holiday. That tax is currently 12.4%. For 2011 that tax will be equal to about $700 billion. A very big drag. I want to cut SS by 60% during the holiday. I want the reduction to be shared by workers and and their employers. I would have a ratio of 60% for the workers and 40% for the employers. I want to put $400b in the hands of the private sector. This is money that does not even get collected by D.C.. So the government can’t spend it. I believe that the 150 million American workers will make the best use of that extra $240B. They will spend some of it and they will save some of it. The companies that get a break will also spend it. I would require that the savings that the employers get have to be re-invested.

BUT. This has to be PayGo. This can be done. I estimate that a ~4 year cut of SS benefits for those who are getting checks now but also have taxable income in excess of ~$200k PA is required. I call this the Bill Gates/Warren Buffet tax. These guys do not need the extra 1500 a month SS is paying them. This is a means test. It taxes wealth. I do not like that, but it is necessary. We have to raise revenue.

The percentage of people that this would affect is small. Therefore it is politically “sale-able”. It is a significant change of the rules of SS. But those changes would be temporary. To attempt to make this “fairer” I would give those that lost benefits a tax credit. That tax credit would be available to offset (dollar for dollar) any federal estate taxes that would be due at death. What would this do? It would put more “wealth” back into the hands of the next generation. Everything we do robs from the next generation. This has the opposite impact. It puts more in the hands of our children.

Some would object to this. But my guess is that Bill and Warren and many others who would lose benefits would be happy to do so. Those that would be impacted by this have a great stake in America. These are the ones who have the most to lose if we fall into a debt spiral or a depression. They are getting the money, but only after they are dead.

Trust me. A $400b reduction in PR taxes would be a very effective stimulus. It would work. The economy would stabilize. But it must be paid for. If we just borrow and spend we will have accomplished nothing. Making it PayGo would instill confidence.If confidence is restored markets will improve and interest rates will return to more normal levels. Those that lost SS benefits would rejoice at that result.

Disclosure: I would lose my benefits if this plan were implemented.

#2 – You have written extensively about Social Security. Which aspect of this program do you feel is most misunderstood? How much of a threat are baby-boomers to entitlement programs?

Hmmm. Most misunderstood? There are so many aspect of this that are misunderstood.

The $2,500,000,000 Trust Fund has to be at the top of the list. I typed all the zeros to show just how big the number is. $2.5 Trillion. Hard to think of.

Some say there is no money or assets in the TF. That it was robbed by some prior administration. Many refer to it as a ponzi scheme. Just a fictional accounting scam.

Those on the extreme other side look at this as massive pile of AAA Treasury bonds that will mature and be available to pay scheduled benefits for the next 25 years or so. They think that SS is sound and nothing need be done about it.

Both of these views are wrong in my opinion. The bonds in the TF will be paid on time. They are legally just as sound as those held by the Chinese central bank. We exclude these debts when evaluating our current Debt/GDP ratios.  We are doing ourselves a disservice, this is real money that is owed.

But to honor these debts means that the Debt Held By the Public will increase $ for $. That can’t and will not happen. Yes there are real assets, and no they can’t be used without a (my word) disastrous consequence to the bond market. There is a limit to what can be sold. I think we are dangerously close to that limit today. Adding in another 2.5t will make us lose our AAA and our financing cost will go up. We will become Greece.

On the Boomers. They have been the problem for decades. This demographic bulge is probably our most significant medium term challenge. When the boomers were born they created a housing boom. That has not stopped until 2007. 2008 is the first year of the boomers getting to 65 folks. That is not a coincidence. The mcmansions, second and third homes are coming up for sale now. The boomers are downsizing. This will go on for many years.

While the boomers did pay a lot of taxes and funded the surpluses in SS they are now going to start costing us big time. The aging of our population is accelerating. We still have a decade to peak.

If the economy were growing by 4-5% we could afford this transition. But that is the least likely thing to happen. Because of the boomers, we will be lucky to grow at 1.5%. Should that be the case the boomers will sink the economy.

Resources are are scarce. Allocations will have to be made. It will not be pretty. We have the risk of “age warfare”. We may be faced with the choice, “Who do we protect?” The health and education of people 25 and younger, or the health and well being of those over 80. If we are faced with triage we will have to support the former over the latter.

Socially, we may be looking at a bad end for the boomers.

I am a boomer.

#3 – Reports of under-funded pensions at corporate, state, and federal levels are widespread. Are you concerned?

Not my area of expertise.  I read the reports as you do. I am certain they are right. We are on a train wreck with this. The problem is that there was an assumption about how quickly assets would grow (8%) and and how big future contributions will be. Both are wrong. The lines are crossing in public and private PFs all over the country.

Cuts will have to be made. But these were promises that were made in ink, so it will not be easy. To a very significant extent this is another boomer problem. I will repeat from above:

Socially, we may be looking at a bad end for the boomers.

#4 – Could you briefly sum up your thoughts on U.S. equities?

Briefly? What a tough assignment.

There are today some excellent investment opportunities in the capital markets. That will be the case every day for the next ten years. But I don’t know what they are and if I did I would not share them. Those that “share” are just selling their book. I am convinced of one thing:

THE “BUY AND HOLD” IS DEAD. DEAD. DEAD….

Thanks to Bruce for taking the time. He’s one of the more level-headed and knowledgeable finance bloggers out there, and has the real-world experience many of us lack.

Home Prices Down 0.7% YoY in January

The latest Case-Shiller data is out. Home prices for the 12 months ending in January 2010 were near flat at -0.7%. Here’s a longer term view.

The trend does appear to be positive, but we’ll see what happens if/when the home buyer tax credits end in April. And what effect Bernanke pulling out of the MBS market has on rates. And how the Option-ARM peak plays out.

h/t Big Picture.

Half of Loan Modifications Fail

More bad news on America’s housing front. Bloomberg reports that 51% of loan modifications have failed within 9 months.

More than half of U.S. borrowers who received loan modifications on delinquent mortgages defaulted again after nine months, according to a federal report.

The re-default rate of loans modified in the first quarter of 2009 was 51.5 percent by the end of the year, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision said in a joint report today. The figure, which measures payments at least 30 days late, climbed to 57.9 percent for changes made in the prior 12 months.

U.S. homeowners are struggling to make payments as depressed housing prices leave them owing more than their properties are worth. About 24 percent of properties with a mortgage were underwater in the fourth quarter, First American CoreLogic said last month. The median price of a U.S. home was $165,100 in February, down 28 percent from its peak in July 2006, according to the National Association of Realtors.

The current round of foreclosure-prevention plans have failed after just 9 months, even though they were short-sighted extend/pretend in nature — reducing interest rates to 2% for 5 years and extending loan schedules out to 40 years. They probably thought this would buy them at least a couple of years. So while banks collected a ton of fees from the govt for “trial” modifications, they obviously aren’t working.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens after the Fed ends MBS purchases, and rates (presumably) go up a bit. The homebuyer tax credit expires in April, which could also negatively affect demand. But so far the efforts appear to be an utter waste, more backdoor bank bailouts.

If anything, they only pulled demand forwards, and served to reward people lucky enough to buy during the bonanza. Buy a house a day before or after the tax credit is in effect? Tough sh*t.

Extend and Pretend Take Two: Principal Reduction (For a Few)

Some have applauded Bank of America’s recently announced principal reduction program, which cuts loan amounts up to 30%. But it should also be noted that BofA isn’t doing this out of the kindness of their heart. It’s part of a settlement with multiple attorneys general in connection with their sketchy Countrywide loan portfolio. The Obama administration is expected to announce a more widespread program tomorrow.

This efforts’ prospects nearly as bad as the original loan-modification programs. To qualify, borrowers must be at least 20% underwater, have an ARM or Interest-only loan,  and be at least 2 months behind on their payments. The prospect of a $40,000 reduction in a loan will inspire a lot more people to be a lot later on their mortgage payments. And probably a lot of fraud losses along the way. More moral hazard incoming…

Greenspan’s Mistakes, Visualized

This chart from ContraryInvestor.com (subscription req’d) shows 40+ years of Fed Fund rates vs. full CPI (including food and energy prices, excluding shelter/housing costs).

The disconnect between interest rates and CPI from 2002-07 is especially noteworthy in light of Greenspan’s recent arguments that low interest rates weren’t responsible for the housing bubble. Apparently giving banks access to a spigot of cash does not encourage reckless lending. Here’s Greenspan rationalizing extended low interest rates during this period:

We had been lulled into a sense of complacency by the modestly negative economic aftermaths of the stock market crash of 1987 and the dotcom boom

Given history, we believed that any declines in home prices would be gradual. Destabilizing debt problems were not perceived to arise under those conditions

Given that we had never seen home price appreciations this rapid, might an objective observer have thought something off? Someone who’s full-time job it was to assess these things?

Vacancies

Here’s another great chart from Contrary Investor (again – CI is subscription only, but well worth it IMO. I have no stake in posting these links, but they offer some of the best charts and analysis I’ve found).

The chart below shows various home and rental market vacancy stats. Though things have improved, we still have to see what goes down when (and if) the Fed/Govt ends their massive support programs (currently scheduled to expire near the end of Q1 2010). Things may start deteriorating all over again, but we’ll have to see.

Moody’s: No Florida Real Estate Recovery Until the 2030s

Bloomberg BusinessWeek is out with a piece on Florida’s misadventures in real estate. Apparently Eaton Vance is dumping Florida municipal bonds tied to real estate deals at $.26 on the dollar.

Still no need to mark down any of those bank assets, of course. The underlying assets will bounce back, we keep hearing. Well, Moody’s says the Florida RE market might not recover until the 2030s.

Thomas Metzold, Eaton Vance Corp.’s co-head of municipals, sold all his defaulted bonds of Tison’s Landing, an unfinished housing development in Jacksonville, Florida, as the debt fell to a third of face value last year.

Dumping the so-called dirt bonds at a discount was a better bet, the Boston-based Metzold said, than taking over 218 empty acres (88 hectares) from the project’s builder and waiting for a real-estate rebound that may not come until the early 2030s, according to a Moody’s Economy.com forecast.

The BW piece is full of good quotes and info, and I do recommend reading the whole thing. Here’s another snippet:

It’s the single biggest default wave in the history of municipal bonds,’ said Richard Lehmann, the newsletter’s publisher, who defines default as failing to pay debt service or tapping reserves to do so. ‘There are about 78 more districts with $2.7 billion of bonds on our watch list that are likely to go into default this year.’

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek (which I’m quite impressed with lately).

December’s Plunge In Existing Home Sales

Home sales often dip in December, but 2009′s finish was especially nasty. The first-time homebuyer credit was scheduled to expire at the end of November (almost nobody believed that was gonna happen). That explains some of the drop — as demand was pulled forward — but 16% is ugly no matter how you spin it.

Here’s the NAR’s spin-job for any who are interested. I honestly feel for them, tasked with finding the silver lining in this dismal RE market.

Chart via Rolfe Winkler.

Page 1 of 212