|
With stock prices down considerably since 2001 and apparently heading lower,
many Americans have taken a liking to real estate. They have bought homes in
record numbers as easy credit and low interest rates have enabled many to buy
rather than rent a home. And just like stock prices during the 1990s, the value
of homes keeps rising as does the debt incurred to buy them. According to Federal
Reserve data, American homes now are worth some $13.6 trillion, which is 92%
more than a decade ago, while mortgage debt more than doubled to $6 trillion.
With all that money rushing into real estate, does it blow bubbles, as it did
in the stock market, or does it reflect chronic inflation and dollar depreciation,
or does it manifest rising incomes and growing ownership aspiration?
Searching for an answer to these questions, we must raise and answer yet another
question that enfolds the former: is the capital market that guides and drives
economic activity allowed to function freely or is it controlled and manipulated
by government regulators? In other words, is an unhampered market rate of interest
allowed to direct the employment of capital and labor and thereby shape present
conditions, or is the rate commanded and managed by mighty controllers? The
answer is obvious: it is set by the governors of the Federal Reserve System
who thereby modify all interest rates and manipulate the capital markets. In
recent years they chose to keep interest rates far below market rates and thus
guide economic activity along lines that differed greatly from those an unhampered
market would have directed. They caused massive increases in money and credit
and brought about what economists call "maladjustments" which are the very
mainspring of economic recessions and depressions.
Maladjustments in real estate differ visibly from the afflictions of stock
and bond markets which are national or even international in range and scope.
Landed property is an inherently local asset that is affected by a great number
of local demand and supply factors. The housing market in San Jose, California,
has little resemblance to that in Grove City, Pennsylvania, although both are
affected by the same Federal Reserve monetary policy. Some places may suffer
stagnation or price declines while others experience feverish booms. There
may be bubbles in some parts of the country while stagnation and recession
hold others in their grip. Yet all prices undoubtedly are much higher than
they would be in absence of chronic inflation and dollar depreciation.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight informs us that average
housing prices rose 38.3 percent from 1997 to 2002. This knowledge may be of
interest to economic historians but of little use to real estate investors.
They are intrigued and lured by local conditions and the possibility of earning
high returns through debt financing when prices soar. A home buyer may put
down ten percent of the purchase price and borrow the rest; a price rise of
ten percent would double his investment. An annual price increase of just five
percent would yield a return of 50 percent on his investment, year after year.
While the mortgage loan continually depreciates in purchasing power, the owner's
equity rises in step with the rising price of his house. In fact, in less than
ten years a ten percent annual bubble rate will shift one-half of the value
of his house to him, without having made a single loan payment. Surely, he
will have to maintain the property and pay an interest on the mortgage loan,
which may be less than the rent he would have to pay if he were to rent the
house.
This leverage of debt financing also works in reverse. When the bubble bursts
and housing prices readjust, many new owners soon lose their entire investment.
A ten percent fall in prices wipes out a ten percent owner equity; a thirty
or forty percent decline, which is rather common in a bubble crash, not only
stamps out his investment but also may inflict additional losses - unless he
walks away from his house and thereby shifts the losses to the financial institution
that granted the loan. When the decline is severe and many owners choose to
unload their losses on creditors, the crash may jeopardize the solvency of
financial institutions that financed the bubble.
Despite such occasional reversals our age of inflation has made ownership
of a home the most effective way to increase personal wealth. While inflation
tends to raise interest rates by adding the anticipated depreciation rate to
the basic time-preference rate, it also lowers the debtor's risk premium which
may offset the higher depreciation rate. The owner's equity increases in step
with the rising price of the house, which simultaneously reduces the risk to
the lender. Before the age of inflation a home buyer needed a down payment
of 30 to 50 percent of the purchase price; the age of inflation gradually reduced
this rate to 20 or 10 percent, but sometimes 3 percent or less. The lender's
price risk is minimal; the buyer may just sit back and let the bubble increase
his equity.
Politicians and government officials look with favor on home ownership as
they themselves do benefit from such favors. Home buyers enjoy big tax breaks.
They can deduct property taxes and the interest on their mortgages from their
taxable income. And when they sell their homes they may exclude up to $250,000
in capital gains from taxable income; married couples may deduct $500,000.
And they can do this again and again as long as they live in the home for two
of five years before selling.
The prices of manors and mansions have soared above all other housing prices.
When the stock market began to retreat and disappoint in 2001 many underperforming
funds sought refuge in real estate and thus caused housing prices to take off.
The nouveaux riches of the stock market now sought safe harbors in real estate
and those speculators who could not afford such luxury could at least borrow
against the equity in their houses and raise their standards of consumption
to manor levels. A "refinancing" mania gripped the real estate market and lifted
the level of mortgage debt. To take advantage of the current low rates, many
debtors chose "variable-rate" mortgages that are readjusted frequently. If
interest rates should ever return to market levels and cause real estate prices
to decline, many such refinanced houses would not be worth the debt standing
against them. In the meantime, most homeowners rejoice about their rising equity
which they calculate in nominal prices. If they would compute prices
in inflation-adjusted dollars, their profits would be much lower or
even turn to losses. In some parts of the country nominal prices continue to
rise moderately while inflation-adjusted prices actually stagnate or even decline.
National statistics tend to understate the risk of loss for many homeowners.
They obscure the extreme price swings in individual towns and cities and blur
the particular forces that may reduce or compound the maladjustment. During
the 1980s, for example, several West Coast cities enjoyed feverish high-tech
and defense-spending booms. Real estate prices soared. A few years later when
high-tech production spread to China, India, and many other places, stagnation
settled over many places and prices fell noticeably. In the Silicon Valley
they slid some twenty percent.
In recent years many communities also have been affected by soaring U.S. trade
deficits driven by Federal Reserve easy-money policies and mounting U.S. Treasury
budget deficits. As trade deficits rose to more than $500 billion annually,
that is to more than five percent of GDP, American manufacturers of many consumers
goods faced growing pressures of foreign competition and were forced to contract.
Many communities soon experienced economic declines and rising unemployment
especially in parts and sections of town occupied by the laboring population.
While the construction of mansions continued at full speed and middle class
refinancing generated new life in old neighborhoods, heavily-populated urban
areas occupied by welfare recipients and unemployed laborers ceased to grow.
Apartment rents may have kept on rising but the prices of such dwellings rarely
did.
Throughout the industrial Northeast many communities, large and small, even
endured real depressions as militant labor unions relentlessly boosted production
costs and unemployment soared to deplorable levels. The strongholds of labor
unions, such as coal mining, the steel industry, the automobile industry, the
aerospace industry, trucking, and shipyards, stagnated throughout most of the
1980s and 90s. In Grove City, Pennsylvania, ugly labor strikes, too numerous
to count, finally drove the largest employer out of town and state. In Youngstown,
Ohio, high unemployment and deep depression settled on the community when the
last steel mill was forced to close its gates.
The local demand-and-supply factors that often drive the real estate market
may at times be overshadowed by national forces. They surely were overwhelmed
during the Great Depression of the 1930s and the six recessions that descended
on the country since then. Another recession could do it again. If foreign
central banks should tire of financing U.S. trade deficits the U.S. dollar
would plummet in foreign exchange markets, American goods prices would rise,
and interest rates would readjust. An international flight from the dollar
undoubtedly would delimit the Fed's power to manage interest rates. Rising
rates would impact on the housing market and reveal the maladjustments that
resulted from many years of rate manipulation. Rising rates would expose ill-designed
housing built in wrong quantities, wrong qualities, and wrong neighborhoods.
Of course, the monetary authorities would do everything in their power to flush
the troubles away. Unaware of any inexorable principles of economics and infatuated
by the coercive powers of government, they are likely to compound the difficulties
and make matters worse.
Even if foreign creditors should never tire of financing American trade deficits
and U.S. Treasury debt, the maladjustments are calling for correction. The
ocean of debt in which many Americans are swimming cannot brook a major rise
in interest rates; it may soon force a readjustment. Similarly, the financial
bubble engendered grossly inflated price-earnings ratios which call for early
readjustment to unimpeded levels. In short, powerful forces consisting of the
value judgments and choices of the people are working tirelessly to correct
the maladjustments also in real estate.
* * * *
It is well nigh impossible to estimate the magnitude of income and wealth
which false interest rates and misleading credit markets redistribute every
day. It is unearned lucre that is taken from millions of savers and creditors
and bestowed on all kinds of debtors, including millions of mortgagers. Surely,
most Americans are both creditors and debtors but rarely equal in both accounts.
Most may be vaguely aware of the transfer process; some may take advantage
of it, but only a few may be knowledgeable of the causes that drive the process.
Economists are keeping their eyes on the prime movers, the Federal Reserve
System and the U.S. Treasury which wield vast powers over American money and
credit. But their voices are barely audible in the din of official pronouncements.
Most Americans trust their political leaders and their media spokesmen who
wax eloquent about the wisdom of Federal Reserve policies and the benefits
of Federal spending. They sense the growing importance of government and especially
its primary role in the allocation of inflation lucre. Discerning the important
role of politics in their economic lives, many Americans now participate in
party politics and join in bitter feuds about government favors. They all would
redistribute the lucre, few would abolish it. They may even favor and support
inflationary policies that blow bubbles in real estate and create incomparable
opportunities. Unfortunately, they pay little heed to the great economic and
social harm done by such policies.
|