Mortgage rates only kept climbing in the last week. Buyers in this real estate market notice these affordability changes, and so we can see in the data fewer home purchase offers, slightly climbing unsold inventory, and slightly more price reductions for the homes that are on the market. This is the same pattern as we talked about last week. The first half of the year had surprisingly resilient sales, but that is slowing again. Mortgage rates are at their highest level in 20 years because the economy just keeps reporting strong data. And every uptick in mortgage rates leads to a downtick in the number of home buyers in the market.
Rising rates make more inventory. So how much inventory will we add this fall? Well as of now, these slowing signals are subtle. This housing market is much different from last year at this time. Last year, rates climbed dramatically and so did inventory. Now rates are inching up, and so is inventory. If mortgage rates jump to say 8%, that’s when we’d see big changes in inventory and home prices. Keep watching these numbers here.
Inventory
Inventory of unsold homes on the market is ticking up. It now doesn’t look like next week will be the peak of inventory for the season. It looks like inventory will keep climbing into September. There are now 495,000 single-family homes unsold active on the market. Inventory rose by just under 1% again this week.
This inventory climb at the end of August is not unusual. It’s not a rapid rise, but it also doesn’t appear to be leveling off. Inventory often peaks the last week of August, the fall has fewer sellers and it keeps shrinking through the holidays. Now because mortgage rates have been notably climbing for the last several weeks, we also expect inventory to keep climbing into September as fewer buyers make offers on the existing inventory.
There are 10% fewer homes on the market now than last year at this time. Last year inventory spiked from March through July with spiking mortgage rates. Then it leveled off a bit. So this week inventory lost ground on last year. The inventory gain week to week was more than it was last year at this time. That’s the first time this happened in many months. Last week there were 10.5% fewer homes on the market, this week that’s only 10% fewer. This is one of the subtle signals that higher mortgage rates have slowed this year’s home buyers again.
To understand the future of housing inventory in this country remember the Altos Rule. The Altos rule says that the more available inventory of homes to buy is the result of higher mortgage rates. If rates climb, so does inventory. If rates fall, inventory will fall.
There are 365,000 single-family homes in contract now. That’s up a fraction from last week and 10% fewer than last year at this time. New pending sales of single-family homes going into contract this week came in at 63,000 vs 70,000 last year. In this chart, the height of each bar is the total number of homes in contract that week. The light red portion of the bar represents those newly in contract. The sales rate has slowed since rates did their latest jump of over 7%. In fact, I’d expect the NAR headlines to keep falling on the pending sales measure as well. We could see the sales rate tick down to four million annually on their seasonally adjusted annual rate in the next couple of months.
I’m looking forward to the time when the real-time data starts to grow and the sales rates look more bullish than the headlines, but that’s not happening yet. As we watch the new pending home sales data each week, the next trend we’ll be looking for is how quickly the new pending sales rate shrinks this autumn. See in the chart how the light red portion of each bar shrank so quickly last fall. We had some recovery in the first half of this year. We started the year with 30% fewer homes in contract.
That gap narrowed to just 10% fewer. But we’ve been unable to get closer than that. The market was accelerating this spring, but it is not doing so now. I suppose these negative swings are the other side of the coin for what I’ve called a soft landing in housing. Housing demand cratered, but home prices didn’t crash. Home prices declined in July and September last year, and recovered a bit in the first half of this year. Now demand is softening again and that will keep home prices from appreciating much from here.
American homebuyers are very sensitive to mortgage interest rates. And while higher mortgage rates have hurt affordability for so many, it’s really the change in rates that spur changes in demand. Early this year we had more home buyers than sellers, even with rates in the six-percent range. When rates jump to 7.2% that’s when we see the demand data react accordingly. So it’s not the absolute level, it’s the change in rates that we should be paying attention to.
Price
And we can see it in the home price reduction data too. Price reductions are about to inch above 2018 and 2019 again. 35.5% of the homes on the market have had price reductions. Price cuts always tick up late in the summer, and this year’s seasonal increase is speeding up just a bit with the recent higher mortgage rates. Each week we have slightly fewer buyers, making slightly fewer offers, so slightly more sellers cut their asking prices.
Watching this price reduction curve has been so valuable lately. So insightful. In this chart, each line is a year. You can see last year’s light red line started climbing in March. That told us the pandemic frenzy was over. In September last year, price reductions spiked again with mortgage rates. This year, the dark red curve showed us how rapidly the market was recovering. That told us there was a floor on how far home prices could fall. It really highlights how effective this stat is for understanding the future of home sales prices. Right now 35.5% of the homes on the market have had a price cut.
This is a totally normal level. It is rising, not rising fast, it’s not a strong signal, but it is rising faster than in recent years for August. That tells us that sellers are seeing fewer buyers than they anticipated. This buyer slowdown means any home price appreciation we’ve had year over year is weakening and may be in jeopardy.
Tracking price reductions on the listed homes on the market is really insightful at the local level too. Right now we can see for example that Austin Texas has the most price reductions of any big market and that seems to be climbing. You can use the Altos data to understand local differences which are so important right now.
The median price of single-family homes right now across the country is $449,900. That’s basically unchanged from last week and from last year. Prices tend to cluster around the big round numbers, in this case, $450,000, with a big group priced just under that for search purposes. So home prices are at this $450,000 plateau for a while. That’s the dark red line on this chart. See at the far right end the little plateau. Home sales prices in the future are falling because we can see the ask prices are very stable. Much more stable than they were last year at this time.
The median price of the newly listed cohort this week is $399,000 again that’s also unchanged from last week. That’s the light red line on this chart. The price of the newly listed homes is 1.3% higher than last year at this time. This is when homes go on the market, the sellers and the listing agents know where the demand is, where the buyers are and they price accordingly. So the price of the new listings is an excellent leading indicator of where home sales prices will be out in the future.
We’re in this tricky space looking at year over year home price changes now. Last year the market was slowing so quickly that the comparisons now to last year start to look easier. Prices were falling last year with frozen demand. This year the market is slowing gradually. You can expect that the annual home price appreciation would continue to improve even though the momentum is a bit negative right now. It looks like we’ll end 2023 with home prices up a few percent over where 2022 ended.
And when we look at the price trends for the homes going into contract, we can see the earliest proxy for the sales which will actually close and get recorded in September and October. You can see that the last several weeks have put a little downward pressure on what home buyers are willing to pay. See how the dark red line was above last year for a few months and then in recent weeks, the dark red line is compressing closer to the light red line. That’s sales prices giving up their annual gains with higher mortgage rates.
The median price of the homes that went into contract this week is $378,000. That’s up a tick from last week and over last year, but you can see in the chart the dark red line is drifting lower. Now, the sales comparison gets a lot easier in September when we had that big rate spike in 2022. So assuming we don’t have another mortgage rate spike, the annual price appreciation will continue to improve. On the other hand, if we see 8% mortgage rates, there’s no reason to believe that home prices can’t gap down again like they did last year.
Again this is a very clear reaction to the latest surge in mortgage rates. We have fewer buyers and those buyers are willing to pay just a little bit less. The opposite is true too. If rates were to drift lower, you can expect more buyers, less inventory, fewer price cuts and higher prices in data measures like this one the price of the newly pending sales each week. The data is very clear right now.
The mixed-use structure at 843 N. Spring St. designed by Lever Architecture is one of the largest mass timber structures in Los Angeles.
(Paul Turang)
From a distance, the building under construction at 843 N. Spring St. in Chinatown might seem like many of the commercial structures popping up around L.A.: four stories of open-plan offices rise above ground-level retail spaces that one day will house restaurants and shops. But move in closer and you’ll find some surprising details‚ including a ground-level arcade dotted with rough tree ferns and a rooftop patio planted with foxtail agaves and purpletop vervain. What is most notable, however, is wood — which is everywhere.
Look up and you’ll find that the building’s floor plates are partly supported by broad panels of mass timber, the generic term used to describe a variety of industrial, engineered woods. 843 N. Spring is part of a wave of such structures springing up around the United States. In Milwaukee, you can find a new 25-story mass timber residential tower, and a forestry college in Oregon now inhabits a pair of graceful mass timber buildings.
It may seem counterintuitive, but mass timber can match or exceed the strength of concrete and steel. Also counterintuitive: The material performs well in a fire. (In much the same way a large log will fail to ignite in a campfire, mass timber’s solidity is not conducive to rapid fire.) And, in fact, it has been subjected to a battery of testing both in the U.S. and abroad, including blast tests that have allowed for its use by the military.
Thomas Robinson, co-founder of Lever Architecture, a firm with offices in Portland, Ore., and L.A. that has helped pioneer the use of mass timber in the U.S., says, “It’s very different from what you buy at Home Depot.”
Advertisement
An atrium features landscape design by James Corner Field Operations.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
Thomas Robinson is a co-founder of Lever Architecture, which is known for its mass timber projects.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
Among Lever’s projects are mass timber buildings for Adidas and the Oregon Conservation Center in Portland. The team is also behind the thoughtful design at 843 N. Spring, which includes landscape design by James Corner Field Operations (the studio behind the remarkable Tongva Park in Santa Monica).
At the moment, 843 N. Spring is probably the largest structure employing mass timber in Los Angeles, though it could soon be outdone by a mixed-use development at the border of Culver City and West Adams designed by Shop Architects. Whatever its scale, the building is an intriguing example of the possibilities of the material.
Trees, for one, sequester carbon, and unlike concrete and steel they don’t require intensive fabrication processes — they just grow. A study published in 2019 in the Journal of Building Engineering, which examined the use of mass timber from harvest to construction, found an average reduction of 26.5% in global warming potential. Mass timber is also produced in prefab panels, which means it can be milled to the specific dimensions of a project, thereby limiting waste, staging and construction times. If a mass timber building is torn down, wood can be reused. Concrete is not nearly as flexible: When it meets the wrecking ball, it generally ends up as landfill.
Advertisement
Mass timber was used in the floorplates of a hybrid structure in L.A.’s Chinatown for L.A. developer Redcar.
(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)
A view of City Hall from the rooftop at 843 N. Spring St., which features landscape design by James Corner Field Operations.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
Certainly, just because it’s wood doesn’t make it environmental. Clear-cutting, for example, is devastating to local ecologies. “Part of our job is to ask the right questions,” Robinson says. “You’re really trying to identify forests that are managed in a way that really thinks about sustainable forest practices for the long term.”
Lever prefers wood that has received sustainability certifications from the Forest Stewardship Council, which includes the timber used in the Spring Street project. Transport to the site is also key. Wood for the building was harvested in British Columbia and transferred to L.A. by ship, which is less carbon intensive than trucking it in overland.
The Spring Street building is a hybrid structure, meaning it still employs steel and concrete. But this is mitigated by other elements in the design.
843 N. Spring St., in the foreground at right, is next to the Chinatown Metro station.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
Advertisement
Rather than tear out the vacant big-box store that inhabited the site, the architects built on top of it, thereby avoiding additional emissions and demolition waste. In the existing underground lot, they added stacked parking, which made room for additional cars without more digging, and — more important — added generous bicycle storage. (The building practically sits on top of the Chinatown stop of the A Line, making it an ideal hub for multimodal transit.) Unusual for a commercial building, the design also prioritizes fresh air: Each unit has operable windows and sliding doors that allow for passive ventilation.
No building can be carbon-zero — construction consumes resources. But the process can be far less carbon intensive. And, as 843 N. Spring also proves, it can look really good.
Your tax return is due April 18, but you’ll want to get a head start by gathering up your income sources, savings and dividends, business expenses, and HSA reimbursements. You can then file yourself by using IRS Free File or tax filing software, or get some help with a tax professional.
During the initial wave of the banking crisis in March, I published “Truist: Immense Unrealized Bond Losses Threaten Core Equity Stability.” At the time, Trust Financial Corp. (NYSE:TFC) had suffered the most significant drawdown among the top-ten US banks. Roughly five months ago, I was among the few analysts with a definitively bearish outlook on the bank, while many had viewed it as a dip-buying opportunity. My perspective was that although TFC’s “bank run” risk was low, the vast extent of its off-balance sheet losses left it with little safety for a potential rise in loan losses. Further, I expected that growing net interest margin pressures would substantially lower the bank’s income over the coming year, potentially compounding its risks.
Since then, TFC has declined by an additional ~11% in value and recently retraced back near its May bottom, associated with the failure of the Federal Republic. I believe the most recent wave of downside in at-risk banks is a notable signal that the market continues to underestimate systemic US financial system risks. Of course, following TFC’s most recent bearish pattern, I expect many investors to increase their position, viewing the company as significantly discounted. Accordingly, I believe it is an excellent time to take a closer look at the firm to estimate better its discount potential or the probability of Truist facing much more significant strains.
Estimating Truist’s Price-to-NAV
On the surface, TFC appears to have considerable discount potential. The stock’s TTM “P/E” is 6.3X compared to a sector median of 8.7X. Its forward “P/E” of 7.7X is also below the banking sector’s median of 9.3X. TFC’s dividend yield is currently at 7.2%, nearly twice as much as the sector median of 3.7%. Finally, its price-to-book is 0.66X, considerably lower than the sector median of 1.05X. Based on these more surface-level valuation metrics, TFC appears to be around trading around a 25% to 35% discount to the banking sector as a whole. Of course, we must consider whether or not this apparent discount is pricing for the bank’s elevated risk compared to others.
Importantly, Truist is one of the most impacted banks by the increase in long-term securities interest rates, giving the bank huge unrealized securities losses. Based on its most recent balance sheet (pg. 12), we can see that Truist has about $56B in held-to-maturity “HTM” agency mortgage-backed-securities “MBS” at amortized cost, worth ~$46B at fair value, giving Truist a $10B loss that is not accounted for in its book value. That figure has remained virtually unchanged since its Q4 2022 earnings report through Q2 2023; however, it will rise with mortgage rates since higher rates lower the fair value of MBS assets. Truist’s Q2 report also notes that all of its HTM MBS securities are at due over ten years, meaning they’re likely ~20-30 year mortgage assets that carry the most significant duration risk (or negative valuation impact from higher mortgage rates).
Significantly, the long-term Treasury and mortgage rates have risen in recent weeks as the yield curve begins to steepen without the short-term rate outlook declining. See below:
Data by YCharts
From the late 2021 lows through the end of June, the long-term mortgage rate rose by around 4%, lowering Truist’s MBS HTM assets fair value by ~$10B, while its available-for-sale securities lost ~$11.9B in value (predominantly due to MBS assets as well). Accordingly, we can estimate that the duration of its securities portfolio (almost entirely agency MBS) is roughly $5.5B in estimated losses per 1% increase in mortgage rates. Since the end of June, mortgage rates have risen by approximately 35 bps, giving TFC an estimated Q3 securities loss of ~$1.9B. Around $1B should show up on TFC’s balance sheet and income, while ~$900M will remain unrealized based on its current AFS vs. HTM portioning.
For me, we must value TFC accounting for both. Total unrealized losses and estimated losses based on the most recent changes in long-term interest rates. That said, should mortgage rates reverse lower, Truist should not have that $1.9B estimated securities loss in Q3; however, should mortgage rates continue to rise, the bank should post an even more considerable securities loss. At the end of Q2, Truist had a tangible book value of $22.9B. After accounting for unrealized losses, that figure would be around $12.9B. After considering the losses associated with the recent mortgage rate spike, its “liquidation value” is likely closer to $11B. Of course, Truist has a massive ~$34B total intangibles position due to goodwill created in its acquisition spree over the past decade. Although relevant, I believe investors should be careful in accounting for goodwill due to the general decline of the financial sector in recent years.
While much focus has been placed on unrealized securities losses, the risk associated with those losses is vague. Truist can borrow money from the Federal Reserve at par against those assets, partially lowering the associated liquidity risk. However, the Fed’s financing program is at a much higher discount rate (compared to deposit rates) and only lasts one year, so it is not a permanent solution. Further, the unrealized securities losses are on held-to-maturity assets, meaning it will recoup the losses should the assets be held to maturity. Of course, that means it may take 20-30 years, and Truist may need that money before then.
Further, Truist has a substantial residential mortgage portfolio at a $56B cost value at the end of Q2 (data on pg. 48). Those loans had an annualized yield of 3.58% in 2022 and 3.77% in 2023; since the yield did not rise proportionally to mortgage rates, we know the vast majority of those loans are likely fixed-rate long-term. Since they’re not securities positions, Truist need not publish their changes in fair value; however, should Truist look to sell its residential mortgages, they would almost certainly sell at a similar total discount to its MBS assets, considering its yield level is akin to that of long-term fixed-rate mortgages before 2022. I believe the unrealized loss on those loans is likely around $10B.
The rest of Truist’s loan portfolio, worth $326B at cost, is predominantly commercial and industrial ($166B), “other” consumer ($28B), indirect auto ($26.5B), and CRE loans ($22.7B). Excluding residential mortgages, all of its loan portfolio segments have yields ranging from 6-8% (excluding credit cards at 11.5%), with those segments’ total yields rising by around 3-4% from June 2022 to 2023. Accordingly, it is virtually certain that most of its non-mortgage loans are either short-term or fixed-rate since their yields rose with Treasuries, meaning they do not likely face unrealized losses based on the increase in rates.
Overall, I believe that if Truist were to liquidate its assets, its net equity value for common stockholders would be roughly zero, technically $1B. That figure is based on its current tangible book value, subtracting known unrealized losses on securities (~$10B), estimated recent Q3 realized and unrealized losses (~$1.9B), and estimated unrealized mortgage residential loan losses (~$10B). While the bank does have some MSR assets, worth ~$3B, that are positively correlated to rates, I do not believe that segment will offset unrealized losses in any significant manner. Together, those figures equal its tangible book value and would lower the total book value to about $34B. However, in my view, intangibles are not appropriate to account for today because virtually all banks have lost value since its 2019 merger, making its goodwill an essentially meaningless figure.
From a NAV standpoint, TFC is not trading at a discount and is most likely trading at a significant premium. Further, based on these data, Truist is, in my view, seriously undercapitalized. Although TFC posts a CET1 ratio of 9.6%, which is also relatively low, its common tangible equity would be essentially zero if its loans and securities were all accounted for at fair value. To me, that is important because most of its losses are on ultra-long-term assets so it may need that lost solvency sometime before those assets’ maturity. Further, even its 9.6% CET1 ratio is close to its new regulatory minimum of 7.4%, so a slight increase in loan losses or a realization of its estimated ~$22B in unrealized losses would quickly push it below the regulatory minimum.
Truist Earnings Outlook Poor As Costs Rise
To me, Truist is not a value opportunity because it is not discounted to its tangible NAV value. Even its market capitalization is around 65% above its tangible book value, which does not account for its substantial unrealized losses. However, many investors are likely not particularly concerned with its solvency, as that could not be a significant issue if there are no increases in loan losses, declines in deposits, or sharp NIM compression. If Truist can maintain solid operating cash flows, that could compensate for its poor solvency profile.
Of course, TFC cannot continue to try to expand its EPS by increasing its leverage since it is objectively overleveraged, nearly failing its recent stress test. On that note, poor stress test results are essential, but “passing” is somewhat inconsequential, considering most of the recently failed banks would have passed with flying colors, as the test does not account for the substantial negative impacts of unrealized losses on fixed-income assets. That is likely because, when “stress testing” was designed, it was uncommon for long-term rates to spike with inflation as it had, and banks had much lower securities positions compared to loans. Thus, it is quite notable that TFC nearly failed a test that does not account for its substantial unrealized losses.
Looking forward, I believe it is very likely that Truist will face a notable decline in its net interest income over the coming year or more. Fundamentally, this is due to the decrease in Truist’s deposits, total bank deposits, and the money supply. As the Federal Reserve allows its assets to mature, money is effectively removed from the economy; thus, total commercial bank deposits are trending lower. Truist’s deposits are trending lower in line with total commercial banks. I expect Truist’s deposits to continue to slide as long as the Federal Reserve does not return to QE. As Truist competes for a smaller pool of deposits, its deposit costs should rise faster than its loan yields. Today, we’re starting to see the spread between prime loans and the 3-month CD contract, indicating that bank NIMs are declining. See below:
Data by YCharts
Truist’s core net interest margin has slid from 3.17% in Q4 2022 to 3.1% in Q1 2023 to 2.85% in Q2. Truist’s deposits (10-Q pg. 48) have generally fallen faster than its larger peers, so it needs to increase deposit costs more quickly. Over the past year, its total interest-bearing deposit rate rose from 14 bps to 2.19%, with the most significant rise in CDs to 3.73%.
Notably, Truist has increased its CD rate to the 4.5% to 5% range to try to attract depositors. However, the bank continues not to pay any yield on the bulk of its savings account products, causing a sharp increase in customers switching toward the many banks which pay closer to 5% today. Over the past year, the bank saw around $10B in outflows for interest-bearing deposits and about $25B from non-interest-bearing deposits, making up for those losses with new long-term debt and CDs. Problematically, that means Truist is rapidly losing more-secure liabilities to more fickle ones like CDs and the money market. While this effort may slow the inevitable decline of its NIMs, it will also increase Truist’s solvency risk because it’s becoming more dependent on less secure liquidity sources as people move money between CDs more frequently than opening and closing savings accounts at different banks.
Truist also faces increased expected loan losses due to a rise in late payments last quarter. That trend is correlated to the increase in consumer defaults and the sharp decline in manufacturing economic strength. See below:
Data by YCharts
Consumer defaults remain normal, but I believe they will rise as consumer savings levels continue to fall and should accelerate lower with student loan repayments. The low PMI figure shows many companies face negative business activity trends, increasing future loan loss risks on Truist’s vast commercial and industrial loan book. Of course, Truist also has a notable CRE loan portfolio, which faces critical risks associated with that sector’s colossal decline this year.
The Bottom Line
Overall, I believe Truist has become even more undercapitalized since I covered it last. I also think Truist faces an increased risk of recession-related loan losses and has a more sharp NIM outlook. Even more significant increases in mortgage rates recently exacerbated strains on its capitalization, while its low savings rates should cause continued deposit outflows. Further, its increased CD rates should create growing negative net interest income pressure.
If there was no recessionary potential, as indicated by the manufacturing PMI, then TFC may manage to get through this period without severe strains; however, its EPS should still decline significantly due to rising deposit costs. That said, if Truist’s loan losses continue to grow due to increasing consumer and business headwinds, its low tangible capitalization leaves it at high risk of significant downsides. If its loan losses grow or its deposits decline, it will need to realize more losses on its assets, quickly pushing its CET1 ratio below its new regulatory minimum. Personally, I strongly expect TFC’s CET1 ratio will fall below the 7.5% level over the next year and could fall even lower if a more severe recession occurs.
I am very bearish on TFC and do not believe there is any realistic discount potential in the stock besides that generated by speculators. Since there is a significant retail speculative activity in TFC and some potential for positive government intervention due to its larger size, I would not short TFC. Although TFC downside risk appears significant, many factors could create sufficient temporary upside that it is not worth short–selling. That said, I believe Truist may be the most important financial risk in the US banking system due to its solvency concerns combined with its size and scope. Accordingly, regardless of their position in TFC, investors may want to keep a particularly close eye on the company because it may create more extensive financial market turbulence than seen from First Republic Bank should it continue to face strains.
What a difference a city makes…in the uber-hot Bay Area, a staggering 43.5% of homes for sale are priced at $1 million bucks or above, according to real estate listing website Trulia.
Compare that to other major metros like Chicago, Dallas, and Philadelphia, where such listings account for fewer than five percent of listings.
In fact, million-dollar listings account for fewer than five percent of all listings in 68 of the top 100 metros nationwide, which clearly illustrates the lopsided distribution of real estate wealth in this country.
If you want to take it a step further, less than two percent of listings are million-dollar homes in 44 of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas.
What Does $1 Million Get You in San Francisco?
The saddest part about San Francisco’s real estate situation is that despite the ridiculous valuations, you don’t get very much for your money, unless you really like fog.
That’s right, for $1 million or more, you only get a median sized home of 1,774 square feet. In other words, you’re probably looking at a townhouse or a condo in the city.
And it certainly won’t be large enough to accommodate your family of four, unless you want to live on top of each other.
Surprisingly, New York City wasn’t even in the top five in terms of percentage of million dollar listings. The Big Apple secured the sixth spot with 20.8% of listings in the $1 million plus category.
It was surpassed by Fairfield County, CT (29.7% share), San Jose, CA (25.7% share), Orange County, CA (24.4% share), and Ventura County, CA (21.5% share).
Rounding out the top 10 were Long Island, NY (), Honolulu, HI (), Los Angeles, CA (), and San Diego ().
It Turns Out Water Is Really Expensive
The takeaway from this list is that being close to the water is HUGE. Of the top 10 million-dollar metros, only one isn’t directly located next to a major body of water.
I’m referring to San Jose, CA, which isn’t on the beach, but still isn’t very far from the San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean.
The rest are a stone’s throw from the nearest beach, making them pretty darn attractive to prospective home buyers.
Their proximity to water also creates a major geographical barrier that limits housing supply, a serious buffer for property values.
In areas that are wide open, supply can be relatively limitless, which doesn’t offer house values much protection.
But back to square footage. Being close to the water also means you get a lot less square footage for your buck.
The top 10 million-dollar metros in terms of least square footage are also situated by the ocean, where median size ranges from 1,489 square feet in NYC to 2,750 square feet in Providence, Rhode Island.
The largest million-dollar homes can be found in Birmingham, Alabama, where the median size is an impressive 8,059 square feet. Of course, it’s about 250 miles to the beach.
You can also get a ginormous home in Toledo, Ohio (7,087 square feet) or Indianapolis, Indiana (7,036 square feet), both of which aren’t anywhere close to a local surf spot.
In fact, all of the top 10 largest million-dollar metros in terms of square footage are landlocked.
So there you have it, water is everything.
Read more: Is Google about to replace your real estate agent?
Eight times every year, the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets to discuss and possibly alter their position on monetary policy.
There are several different courses of action they could take, the most common being quantitative easing, buying and selling government securities, and raising or lowering the federal funds rate.
Most recently, the fed’s tool of choice has been adjusting the federal funds rate.
What is the federal funds rate?
The federal funds rate is the rate at which depository institutions (banks and credit unions) charge each other for overnight deposits.
Why would they need to lend each other money? All banks are required to have a certain amount of funds in their reserves (usually 10%), and sometimes customers withdraw enough money from the bank that the bank’s reserves are below the requirement. They now have two options: to borrow money from the fed or from another bank. The federal funds rate determines how much interest a bank will have to pay for that loan.
Click here for today’s mortgage rates.
How the federal funds rate affects the economy
The federal funds rate is an important base rate that has trickle down effects on the entire economy. After all, if the federal funds rate goes up and banks have to pay more for overnight loans, then it goes to reason that they are going to have to make up the higher cost by raising their own rates. Conversely, if the federal funds rate is lowered, banks can pass lower interest rates on to their borrowers.
With the benchmark federal funds rate lowered, rates on credit cards and business loans also decline, encouraging lending for both businesses and consumers. Businesses are able invest in infrastructure and hire more employees, while consumers make more payments on credit knowing that they don’t get charged as much on the interest.
This results in more financial transactions, ultimately contributing to economic growth of the nation at large. That’s why when the Fed wants to promote economic growth they lower the federal funds rate, and when they think the economy can handle it, they raise the federal funds rate.
Mortgage rates and the Federal Reserve
Understanding mortgage rates can be tricky. The way the situation with the Fed raising and lowering rates is portrayed in the news leads many people to believe that the Fed controls mortgage rates. This is not true—the Fed does not directly set mortgage rates at all. However, that’s not to say that it has no influence over mortgage rates.
Fedspeak
At the Federal Reserve, the forward guidance “fedspeak” that officials offer up to the markets is one of the most powerful tools they have. It’s actually a little bit of the opposite of that old saying that “Actions speak louder than words.”
Generally, when a fed official comes out and gives even the slightest hint that they are in favor of rising rates, investors move away from “safe” government bonds and into riskier assets like stocks. That’s good for the economy, but it causes mortgage rates to rise.
As we’ve seen several times this year, the fed can create a buzz about raising the fed funds rate (which can drive up mortgage rates), but then retreat back from that position and not raise rates (causing rates to fall back down).
It’s this cat and mouse game of talking and not delivering that has landed the Fed in hot water, with some critics claiming the Fed has a credibility problem. Regardless of whether or not you agree with them, it’s undeniable that what the Fed says can influence markets.
Click here for today’s mortgage rates.
How mortgage rates are actually set
If the Federal Reserve doesn’t set mortgage rates, who does?
Good question.
Just as is the case with many other aspects of the economy, market forces are to thank (or blame). Most of the action takes place on the secondary market, where mortgage-backed-securities (MBS) are bought and sold.
These mortgage bonds have prices and yields that move up and down just like stocks and bonds do. If the economy is performing well, investors expect higher yields, and vice versa when the economy is under-performing. So in a way, mortgage rates are a reflection of how well the economy is doing. Specifically, the three major drivers of mortgage rates are:
Stock prices
The labor market
Inflation
As stated, when stock prices are going up, so are mortgage rates. That’s because mortgage-backed-securities are traded as bonds, and conventional wisdom says that when investors are moving money into stocks, they’re taking money out of bonds.
With a decrease in demand for bonds, prices drop and yields rise–pushing rates higher. In the event that investors flood back into bonds, the opposite will happen, causing mortgage rates to drop.
It’s not a perfect relationship, but it’s generally how the market behaves. The relationship between bonds and mortgage rates is best illustrated by the yield on the U.S. 10-year treasury note, which is the best market indicator of where mortgage rates are going.
On any given day, looking at the 10-year yield will give you a fairly accurate picture of where mortgage rates are headed. If the yield is rising, mortgage rates most likely are too, and vice versa.
With the labor market, it’s all about how high unemployment is. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases a monthly employment situation report that is the most-watched report on the matter. If the U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected and the unemployment rate rises, that’s bad news for the stock market, which as we now know pushes mortgage rates lower.
Most people understand inflation as a rise in the cost of living. That’s true, but what’s really happening is the devaluing of the dollar. As the value of the dollar declines, the purchasing power of the dollar diminishes, causing prices to rise.
Mortgage-backed-securities, like every other bond, are denominated in U.S. dollars. Since investors don’t want to own assets that are losing their value over time, they move away from MBS in times of high inflation. With a decrease in demand for MBS, the yields rise, driving mortgage rates higher.
Bottom line
When you’re trying to understand mortgage rates, remember: the Federal Reserve and the federal funds rate do not control mortgage rates. There are several other economic factors at play that anyone trying to track and predict where mortgage rates are going should pay attention to.
That being said, the Federal Reserve does play a major role by influencing how the economy functions, and it’s always important to keep an ear out for what they’re saying.
1. chart via wikipedia
Carter Wessman
Carter Wessman is originally from the charming town of Norfolk, Massachusetts. When he isn’t busy writing about mortgage related topics, you can find him playing table tennis, or jamming on his bass guitar.
“Higher for longer,” they said. And they weren’t kidding. After the mini banking crisis in March, rate watchers were hopeful that this visible consequence of the rate surge meant that a big corner had been turned in the big picture. But in May and June, the Fed was increasingly unconcerned with bank risks while they continued reiterating the “higher for longer” messaging. Markets were slow to take them at their word, but the surprisingly “not bad” economic data in July and August has worked to change some opinions. There have been some complicating factors over the past 2 weeks, but rising rate momentum is still mostly about the economy. As such, it’s the economy that will need to demonstrate a shift before we see meaningful relief. Until then, the path of least resistance is the path we’ve been seeing. Today was just another day on that path.
09:34 AM
Weaker in Asia and Europe overnight. Modest follow-through so far. 10yr up 6.3bps at 4.314. MBS down 14 ticks (.44).
12:45 PM
More weakness into the noon hour, but stabilizing since then. 10yr up 8.7bps at 4.338. MBS down 3/8ths.
03:11 PM
little-changed from the last update (perfectly unchanged, in fact), and very flat over the the past 2 hours.
Download our mobile app to get alerts for MBS Commentary and streaming MBS and Treasury prices.
Despite mortgage rates rising slightly from a previous all-time low, mortgage applications gained 6.8% last week, according to a report from the Mortgage Bankers Association.
The refinance index continued its upward climb, gaining 9% last week and jumping 86% higher than the same week one year ago. Refinances also reached a nearly two thirds share of mortgage activity last week, increasing to 64.3% of total applications from 62.8% the week prior.
According to Mike Fratantoni, chief economist and vice president of research and technology at MBA, 2003 was the last time refinance activity was as high as the $1.75 trillion the MBA is forecasting for 2020.
On Sept. 9, Joel Kan, MBA’s associate vice president of economic and industry forecasting, said the recent rebound in refinance activity was driven mainly by borrowers applying for conventional loans. However, last week Kan noted that while conventional and government refinances gained steam, FHA refis experienced a particular uptick.
On an unadjusted basis, purchase applications rose 13% compared with the previous week and were 25% higher than the same week one year ago – marking the 18th straight week of year-over-year gains.
The demand for higher-balance loans pushed the average purchase loan size to another record high, signaling that consumers’ strong interest in home-buying this summer has now carried over to the fall, Kan said.
The adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) share of activity fell slightly to 2.2% from 2.3% of total applications.
Here is a more detailed breakdown of this week’s mortgage application data:
The FHA’s share of mortgage apps rose to 10.1% from 9.7%.
The VA share of applications fell to 12% from 12.3%.
The USDA share of total applications rose to 0.6% from 0.5%.
The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with conforming loan balances ($510,400 or less) rose to 3.1% from 3.07%.
The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with jumbo loan balances (greater than $510,400) fell to 3.35% from 3.41%.
The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages backed by the FHA rose to 3.23% from 3.16%.
The average contract interest rate for 15-year fixed-rate mortgages rose to 2.64% from 2.61%.
The average contract interest rate for 5/1 ARMs fell to 3.19% from 3.2%.
LibreMax Capital’s main fund notched returns of roughly 6% through July this year, according to a person familiar with the matter, after betting on asset-backed securities and rotating out of commercial and residential mortgage debt and collateralized loan obligations.
The LibreMax Partners Fund, which totals about $1 billion, invests in structured products tied to both corporate and consumer debt. The fund gained about 4% in the first half of last year, as previously reported by Bloomberg. Separately, LibreMax has raised $1 billion across two other funds, namely the LibreMax Core Fund and LibreMax Dislocation Fund, added the person, who declined to be identified as the details are private.
LibreMax believes that structured bonds, which repackage debt into securities of varying risk and size, will outperform junk debt, citing “historically high yields” and fundamentals underpinned by strong consumer finances and record-low unemployment, Chief Investment Officer Greg Lippmann wrote in a July 27 letter to investors, obtained by Bloomberg.
In that vein, the firm increased its ABS exposure while lowering its allocations to commercial mortgage debt, CLOs and residential mortgages. Within ABS, it invested across subprime auto bonds, consumer unsecured, aircraft, solar and credit card securities, the letter details.
The Dislocation Fund, launched earlier this year, capitalizes on market volatility by buying stressed structured bonds at a discount, which are likely to appreciate once the market normalizes, added the person close to the matter.
A LibreMax representative declined to comment.
The New York-based hedge fund anticipates more volatility over 2023 and into the first half of 2024, as persistently high inflation or a recession seem more likely than a soft landing, Lippmann wrote. Lippmann, a former Deutsche Bank AG trader, famously bet against subprime mortgages before the 2008 financial crisis. He appeared in Michael Lewis’s book “The Big Short” in 2010.
Boosting Credit Returns
The fundraising comes during a tough year for US credit markets, which have been roiled by aggressive interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve and the collapse of multiple US regional banks. The banking tumult that started in March led to corporates postponing or pulling financings across the ABS market, while delinquencies in debt like subprime auto bonds and credit card-backed notes are expected to rise.
LibreMax sees opportunities in whole business debt in particular. It participated in a $90 million advance to Coinstar LLC, giving the coin kiosk operator flexibility to restructure about $1 billion in whole business securitization deals that reached a key repayment date in late April, as reported by Bloomberg.
“We will look to source similar investment opportunities going forward,” Lippmann wrote.
CLOs have had a slower 2023 compared to ABS. Issuance is down about 24% year-over-year at around $69 billion, while ABS sales are 7.6% lower year-over-year at $191.4 billion, data compiled by Bloomberg News shows. LibreMax moved away from lower-quality US CLO debt and equity, selling around $90 million in market value, according to the letter. Those proceeds were used to move up the capital stack with the purchase of about $75 million of US investment-grade debt. Still, the bulk of LibreMax’s activity was in Europe, where it invested in short-duration tranches, including equity, the letter noted.
Meanwhile, the CMBS market rout continues as landowners default on mortgages and credit risk spikes. LibreMax bought short-duration investment-grade bonds that may present low double-digit yields, where it believes “the market mispriced the extension likelihood and where returns are still attractive to moderate extensions.”
In residential mortgage bonds, LibreMax moved down the capital stack based on certain borrowers’ performance, reads the letter. The firm is also seeking out opportunities in single-family rental bonds, where companies have struggled to raise rents amid higher expenses.
Lippmann is also “concerned” about the unsecured private credit market, which he says may become “troublesome” if rates stay higher and economic growth slows. He also notes that LibreMax has increased the investment-grade portion of its portfolio to 28%, from 12% in December 2021.
LibreMax and its CLO platform Trimaran Advisors, which it acquired in 2018, collectively had about $9.6 billion of assets under management as of the end of June, according to the note.
Interest rates are based on trading levels in the bond market. Bond traders began their day looking at significantly weaker levels (i.e. higher yields/rates) versus last Friday, but for no apparent reason. Actually, it would be more fair to say “for no new reason.”
Reasons for the rising rate momentum are apparent and ongoing. Decades-high inflation required decades-high rates to fix. The higher rates are supposed to be damaging the economy more than they have. Until that damage shows up, rates have a green light to continue higher.
As more and more market participants abandon their preconceived notions regarding an imminent rate reversal, the upward momentum takes on a certain glacial quality. In other words, it’s self-sustaining, often resulting in days like today where rates look like they’re acting on some obvious catalyst despite the absence of any such news.
Mortgage rates were already new 7.4% by the end of last week and today’s increases bring the average lender closer to 7.5%. This is the highest since late 2000. Lower rates are still available for certain scenarios and discount points, but many scenarios are also seeing higher rates.