?

Log in

No account? Create an account
on the global mortgage crisis and Malthus - The year was 2081 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
matt

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

on the global mortgage crisis and Malthus [Aug. 21st, 2007|11:08 am]
matt
[Tags|, ]

update; reorg table to split absolute and relative numbers

I've been thinking a lot about the global mortgage crisis that's been unfolding over the past few years. Typically, I see the usual suspects trotted out as the reason: profligate consumerism, greed, banks, politicans, and the like. I thought I would assemble the data, and try to make sense of it from there.

Table 1: Population, Housing, and Income: 1975-2005
data from: http://www.census.gov/ 1 2 3 http://www.infoplease.com/ http://www.data360.org/
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Households, Owner, th (Ho) 40834 46423 52223 56152 60248 64739 71250 74553
Households, Renter, th (Hr) 22806 25462 27415 31736 33976 35246 34470 33678
Households, Vacant/Other, th 6137 6896 8101 9446 12059 12669 10439 11916
Population, th (P) 203302 215973 226542 237924 248709 262765 281422 296000
median home price, $ 23400 39300 64600 84300 122900 133900 169000 254389
median income, $ 8000 13719 21023 27735 35353 40611 50732 55823


Table 2: Changes in Population, Housing, and Income: five year periods ending 1975-2005
1970 to
1975
1975 to
1980
1980 to
1985
1985 to
1990
1990 to
1995
1995 to
2000
2000 to
2005
change in pop, th (ΔP) 12671 10569 11382 10785 14056 18657 14578
change in home ownership, th (ΔHo) 5589 5800 3929 4096 4491 6511 3303
change in rentals, th (ΔHr) 2656 1953 4321 2240 1270 -776 -792
pop per household (P/[Ho+Hr]) 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7
ratio change pop/change households (ΔP/[ΔHo+ΔHr]) 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.7 2.4 3.3 5.8
home ownership, % households (Ho/[Ho+Hr]) 65% 66% 64% 64% 65% 67% 69%
home price as multiple of income 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.3 4.6
rise in home price, % annualized 14% 13% 6% 9% 2% 5% 10%
rise in income, % annualized 14% 11% 6% 5% 3% 5% 2%

The important number set, that I highlight above, is what I would like to call ΔP/ΔH. This is the change in population, and how the change in housing is responding to it. ΔP in the above table represents the change in population- plus people are born, minus people who die, plus people who immigrate, etc. They have to live somewhere, and the change in housing suppy is represented by ΔH. There are a lot of net effects aggregated into these numbers. For example, newborns don't tend to move into their own houses, so there's going to be some lag in housing change relative to population change. Conversely, other life changes might mitigate that- parents of a newborn might decide to get their own place, etc. Therefore, it seems acceptable to make the comparison as I have. Each set of data represents the change over the previous five years.

As you will observe, something started to happen circa 1990. The value of ΔP/ΔH begins to increase dramatically, doubling, and then doubling again, exponentially growing. I think that this could be viewed as a kind of pressure on the housing market- as the number rises, there is going to be a pent up demand. Increases in demand, naturally, are going to result in increases in prices. Beginning in 2000-2005, we begin to see the effect of this- the ratio of median home prices to median income begins to skyrocket, increasing by 50% from longer term averages. Typically this is blamed on the twin evils of low interest rates and increasing speculation, but in comparison to ΔP/ΔH, is seems entirely reasonable and explainable based upon simple supply and demand economics.

What is the source of this incresed demand, and why has it been a problem?

One explanation, which I feel is both needlessly xenophobic as well as insufficient, is that uncontrolled immigration is the source of the problem. I have not collected enough data, but a cursory examination has shown me that up to half of ΔP is driven by immigration. I've also noticed a spike in news reports of "spanish language" realtors taking advantage of people, writing adjustable contracts when the buyers are seeing only the immediate 0% teaser rate and not the 8% or higher long term rate, and buying much more house than they can afford.

Clearly, buying "too much house" is an obvious contributor, and is often reported as the cause of the bubble- people buying mortgages well beyond their means, and then subsequently needing to churn the paper or declare bankruptcy. Personally, while I might agree that this is perhaps the immediate cause, this is not the root cause. There's definitely a supply problem: people have to live somewhere, and either the occupancy/density must increase, or more supply must be built (or you'll see what we're seeing, that is, good housing can't be bought at any price!)

The strong message everyone's been getting is "don't rent: BUY!" This is part of the problem: we are learning, through endless hours of Suze Ormond and the like, to become masters of our own destiny. We want our own little slice of America. We want to be part of the ownership class. This is perhaps a sound message, but it requires a good supply of these slices.

We're also quickly approaching a series of big generational changes. As the "Boomers" grow older, they are retiring (meaning fewer workers to prop up social security) and needing more health care (meaning increased stress on Medicare and our health system). These are the sirens we have expected Ship America to be dashed upon, but there's another worry. As the boomers age, many are selling their homes to either trade up, out, or down. They still have to live somewhere, so their movement typically does not affect supply. Howeer, the cash to "cash them out" does need to come from somewhere, and my biggest fear is that Boomers are cashing out at the cost of Generation X, turning their equity into our debt. This is not a new concern: if it's not the warmongering or the environmental damage wrought by the Boomers, it was the massive deficit spending. Now, they're looking to cash out, and expecting many twenty through forty somethings to acquire the debt to pay them for the privilege. But: we X'ers just can't afford it. First of all, this is quickly showing us that there's not enough supply to go around for everyone, even if we could buy it. Second, it's unreasonable to ask us to take control of it at multiples of the levels they assumed. Third, if we're already getting screwed on retirement age, pension, and healthcare, does the Boomer generation expect us to bow over and take it on this as well?

There are solutions. We can live denser, but we can also build more supply. Even here in the Bay Area of CA, I see lots of idle and barren lots. We don't need to level the forests or destroy the farmlands- we do, however, need more housing, desperately. We also need ways to make better use of what we have. We need novel financial structures and new habitation models. We need better values, not just greater supplies, for rented housing. There's a renovating, "flip this house" fever that's caught many people into the property value trap- we need ways to harness this energy to renovate and revive planned/rented housing in ways that benefit tenant as well as landlord. Remodeling shouldn't be about pushing out lower incomes, but making the market accessible to everyone.

In conclusion, the current market crisis is not about bad debts. It's about a paucity of good choices and options. People are trying to make do with the paltry means they have: we don't need tighter regulations or irresponsible spending. We need new ideas, and leaders with vision and drive. We need to find ways to make more efficient use of what we have. And, we need to stop spending our children's inheritance.

LinkReply

Comments:
From: digitalsuze
2007-08-21 09:37 pm (UTC)
I wonder whether the more stringent personal bankruptcy laws have anything to do with this. I haven't done any research on it, it may be that they play no part whatsoever.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hbergeronx
2007-08-21 10:20 pm (UTC)
They can't explain changes that have been happening since 1990, no? Those changes are relatively recent?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: digitalsuze
2007-08-21 10:32 pm (UTC)
Yes, true. Only within the past two or three years.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: twoeleven
2007-08-21 11:09 pm (UTC)
i'm having trouble following your notation. for 2000 - 2005, Δ(p/h) is 0 (both are 2.7), but Δp/Δh is increasing. so Δp/Δh is not rate of change of population per household. what does it mean physically?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hbergeronx
2007-08-22 12:13 am (UTC)
It's inverse has more physical meaning, but it was easier to express it as a whole number than a fraction. Its inverse is the response in housing to changes in population. In a society that isn't changing, ∆H/∆P = ∆(H/P): you build houses that culturally match your current society. In the period 1970 to 1990, we were building more (or growing less) than we culturally expected would be a steady-state society. After 1990, we began to trend the other way. So, in some ways, this could be a reversion to the mean: but I don't think so. I think that our culture has been trending toward the two-person household for a while, and will continue to do so as people have fewer children. This data suggests that the opposite is occuring in the near term, and we are getting bigger households.

Are we building for this? In a society that is aging, this means that more people will live under one roof, so either children live with parents, or aging singles and couples move in together. But, our laws and mortgage system really isn't adapting that way- we have a societal expectation that children move out and get their own place. And: people are renting much less- the ∆Hr is negative for 1995-2000-2005, further restricting supply of housing and changing social makeup.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)