Buffett Sense

Berkshire Hathaway, the holding company headed by Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, owns Clayton Homes, the largest producer of manufactured housing in the U.S. Clayton Homes finances almost 200,000 homeowners. The market they serve is below average in credit risk and with a thin cushion, at best, when times get tough.

From Warren Buffett’s annual letter to shareholders: “[Clayton’s homeowners’] median FICO score is 644, compared to a national median of 723, and about 35% are below 620, the segment usually designated ‘sub-prime.'” Yet, they have had no unexpected losses.

The “delinquency rate on loans we have originated was 3.6%, up only modestly from 2.9% in 2006 and 2.9% in 2004. Clayton’s foreclosures during 2008 were 3.0% of originated loans compared to 3.8% in 2006 and 5.3% in 2004.” In contrast, TransUnion reported that the national average for mortgage delinquency was 4.58%.

“Though Berkshire’s credit is pristine – we are one of only seven AAA corporations in the country – our cost of borrowing is now far higher than competitors with shaky balance sheets but government backing. At the moment, it is much better to be a financial cripple with a government guarantee than a Gibraltar without one.”

“The present housing debacle should teach home buyers, lenders, brokers and government some simple lessons that will ensure stability in the future. Home purchases should involve an honest-to-God down paymentof at least 10% and monthly payments that can be comfortably handled by the borrower’s income. That income should be carefully verified.”

“Putting people into homes, though a desirable goal, shouldn’t be our country’s primary objective. Keeping them in their homes should be the ambition.”

Amen, Warren.

House Walkaway

The following is not a script from a Monty Python episode.

In a 3/29/09 NY Times article, Susan Saulny reports: “Banks are quietly declining to take possession of properties at the end of the foreclosure process, most often because the cost of the ordeal – from legal fees to maintenance – exceeds the diminishing value of the real estate.”

After vacating the house in anticipation of foreclosure, the “former” homeowner finds that, to the city, they are still the “current” homeowner and the city wants them to clean up and maintain the abandoned property.

It does sound like the “dead parrot” episode from Monty Python, doesn’t it?

House Visas For Sale

Here’s an interesting idea by Richard LeFrak (of LeFrak Org, builder of LeFrak City in Queens) and Gary Shilling, an investment advisor, in a WSJ op-ed 3/17/09. The authors present the problem of the huge inventory of excess houses, estimating the total at 2.4 million, and offer a solution.

“Offer permanent resident status to the many foreigners who are clamoring to get into the U.S. – if they buy houses of minimal values (not shacks). They wouldn’t need to live in those houses, but in order to remove the unit from the total housing market, they couldn’t rent them. Their temporary resident status grant upon purchase would become permanent after, perhaps, five years, if they still owned the houses and maintained clean records.”

A good idea but I see several problems. What kind of background check will these foreigners be subject to? This situation would be ideal for drug dealers in foreign countries who want to set up shop in the U.S., where the demand for their goods is strong. Who will monitor whether the new owners will rent the house? It could cause a “land rush” as the demand for those 2.4 million surplus houses would be strong, possibly stronger than the supply, thus causing another housing bubble.

The authors continue: “The blueprint for a program to sell surplus housing to immigrants is already in place with the EB-5 visa program. Each year, 10,000 EB-5 visas are available for foreigners who each invest $1 million in a new enterprise ($500,000 in economically depressed area) that creates at least 10 full-time jobs. After two years, the entrepreneur and his family can become permanent residents.”

This is free market citizenship at its best.

Protectionism

“Punitive” import duties are a classic case of protectionism. The most famous example is the Smoot Hawley act which raised duties to 60% on imports into the U.S. during the depression. This caused other countries to do the same and is regarded by some as the single greatest contributor to the global depression of the 30s.

Any increase in U.S. import duties from their current levels are labeled by “free marketers” as protectionism. What are current levels?

In 2007, the U.S. imported $1.9 trillion. On that amount the U.S. collected $26B in import duties, or 1.3%. What do other countries charge?

U.S. favored trading partners in Europe charge US companies over 5% for imports into their countries. China recently reduced their import duties to 9.8%. Essentially, U.S. import policy makes it more cost efficient for US companies to move their manufacturing base outside of the US, then import the goods back into the US.

Pay As You Go

For some historical perspective, here are some notes I made January 20th, 2009.

As of early October, Obama’s plan was still pay as you go. Pelosi and the blue dog (economic moderates) Democrats were convinced this was a doable plan even with a recession. However, the economic malaise has since proved to be so systemic both in this country and around the world, that revenues will probably fall short.

WSJ reported today (1/20/09) that, after the increase in the AIG bailout last night, there was talk among Democrats over the weekend that the bailouts are probably going to cost more than $700B even before Obama takes office. Secondly, the promised return of some of the money to the taxpayers from AIG is going to take longer than Paulson and Bernanke predicted.

Lastly, there was a cute little move that Paulson announced in September that went under most people’s radar – a change in Sec 382 of the tax code. It voids the tax that banks pay when they merge. The only ones who did notice this change were the mergers and acquisitions guys at US banks. It may mean as much as $140B in tax revenue gone this year and next. It sweetens the after tax bottom line for banks who want to merge.

I’m sure Paulson did this to encourage banks to buy failing assets and banks instead of the Treasury bailing them out but he made no announcement and the CBO was not notified to change their tax revenue projections because of the change. Corporations pay about $350-$400B in taxes each year so a $140B tax break to merging corporations is huge.

Barney Frank is questioning whether Paulson’s move was even legal, given a law that was passed in 1986. At any rate, tax revenues will be far less than even recently revised projections.

Obama can probably get some savings by drawing down troops in Iraq, which is costing us over $10B a month. General Petraeus is calling for more troops in Afghanistan so it is doubtful that there will be any savings in that combined military theater in the next 6 – 12 months. Iraq currently has a $70+ billion surplus and the U.S. may be able to get a down payment on the amount of money we have put into that country.

There is always cleanup to be done when Presidents like Reagan and Bush champion low taxes and high security. Reagan tripled the U.S. debt in his eight years, Bush has doubled it in his 8 years. Neither of them were very analytical, preferring to trust their guts and “shoot from the hip”. Each of them talked small government but delivered bloated government. Now we have a president who talks big government. Maybe we are living in a “bizarro” backwards universe where events turn out the opposite of presidential promises and projections.

Roth Conversions

For those of you who have traditional IRAs or 401Ks, the recent sharp decline in stock prices can be a tax boon if you convert the IRA or 401K to a Roth IRA. You will need to pay taxes on the conversion but the tax is based on the value of the account at the time of the conversion.

As an example, let’s say you put $5000 into an IRA stock mutual fund in 2007. Let’s say the account value is $3000 now. If you convert the account to a Roth IRA, you pay taxes only on the $3000 value. All future gains are tax-free. There are no required minimum distributions. Plus there are additional benefits for your heirs.

But wait, there’s more! If you convert in 2010 (that year only), you can pay the taxes on the conversion over two years.

Also, the $100,000 income limit for Roth conversions expires in 2010.

Household Debt

Thanks to Lydia who sent a link to a Toronto Globe and Mail interview by Heather Scoffield with Laurence A. Tisch, professor of history at Harvard University, and author of The Ascent of Money, A Financial History of the World. Some notable comments:

“This is a very unfair crisis. Here is the world’s biggest economy, which gave us subprime mortgages, rampant securitization, the collateralized debt obligation, Lehmann Brothers, Merrill Lynch. The epicentre is the United States, but the rest of the world, and particularly America’s trading partners, will get hit harder than the U.S. … because the U.S. retains the safe-haven status.” Safe haven is when, in a crisis, the rest of the world buys U.S. Treasury notes and bonds.

“Property ownership is something that our societies, particularly English-speaking societies, seem to be drawn towards. The notion that the majority of people should own their own homes dated from the 30s. It didn’t really become a reality until the 50s. We’ve sort of pushed the home ownership rate up to what seems to be its maximum, and beyond. It will clearly come down. The lesson of the subprime crisis is that you shouldn’t give mortgages to people who can’t afford them.”

“It’s a crisis of excessive debt, the deleveraging process has barely begun, the U.S. consumers are not going to suddenly bounce back and hit the shopping malls just because they get a tax cut. The savings rate is going to continue to rise. These processes have tremendous momentum that quite clearly differentiates them from anything that we’ve seen, including the early 80s, including 73, 74, 75. Those big crises, the ones that we have lived through, were bad. But seems certain to be deeper, and more protracted. “

“August, 2007 was when this crisis began. And if you were really watching the markets carefully, April is when it began, when the various hedge funds started to hemorrhage. The stock markets carried on until October of that year. And in many ways, consumer behaviour in the U.S. did not change until the third quarter of 2008.”

“$2-trillion worth of debt is going to hit the market this year, maybe more. Supply is exploding just when demand is contracting.” “There is still this inertia that prevents the dollar from falling off a cliff, that keeps the Treasury market from falling off a cliff.” “If I were in the market to buy distressed assets, I would wait, I would wait a bit longer until they’re really desperate. And it might even be better to wait until they’re bankrupt.”

“From John Law in 1719 to Alan Greenspan in the late 90s, there’s always a banker, there’s always a central banker making credit too readily available. The second thing is, though, that regulation may not prevent that.”

“Monetary policy evolved in a peculiar way in the 1990s towards de facto or de jure targeting of inflation, an increasingly narrow concept of inflation – core CPI.” “When the central bankers got together at Jackson Hole, the view that emerged from the debate in the late 90s was, we shouldn’t really pay attention to asset prices in the setting of monetary policy.”

“European banks are far more leveraged than American banks.”

“But one of the things that I find troubling about the administration is the degree to which is has ceded power to Congress. It’s almost like it’s a parliamentary system.”

“If you subtract mortgage equity withdrawal from the Bush years, the real underlying rate of growth of the U.S. economy was 1 per cent.”

“If you have a more equitable redistribution through the tax system, which Obama is committed to, it might actually be no discernible downside for middle America and lower-class Americans. So many of the benefits of the boom went to the elites.”

Averages

Everything is uh, well, normal. That is the point that Jack Hough makes in his Stock Screen article in the April 2009 Smart Money magazine. Well, this economy doesn’t feel normal. But Jack presents some data that may surprise many of us.

House prices are down 25% from their 2006 peak. But Jack quotes a survey by Moody’s, one of the rating companies, that shows the cost of a house today averages about 20 years worth of what they might rent for. “From 1983 to 1999 … most houses cost 13 to 15 years worth of rent.” By 2006, housing prices had gotten so high that they were priced at an average of 25 years worth of rent.

We read that American consumers contribute 70% to the overall economy and alarm bells have been sounding because the American consumer is not spending that 70% now. They are, in fact, spending closer to the 80 year average of 65%. What we are seeing is a return to the average from the abnormally high spending of the past decade. This spending was fueled by abnormally high housing prices.

We’re starting to get the point now. This is not economic Armageddon. It is a return to average. We’ve just gotten used to above average in the past decade.

The S&P500 index is about half of what it was in August 2007. But it trades at the 100 year long historical average of 15 times corporate earnings. Those earnings estimates have sunk 30%. But (we’re getting used to this ‘but’ by now) “in 2006, corporate profits were 26% above their long-term average as a percent of gross domestic income.”

This return to average hurts. The unemployment rate is expected to top 8% when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issues their weekly update of new claims. The historical average is 5.6%.

The BLS recently reported a 0.4 percent in productivity in the nonfarm business sector in fourth-quarter 2008, as output fell faster than hours.

Unemployment up + productivity down = not good. Is the mattress the safest place for savings?

The steep decline in stock prices may have caused some to give up on stocks altogether. Jack looked at the twelve worst 10 year rolling periods and found that they are inevitably followed by 10 year periods where the average return is almost 11% per year.

Homeowner Equity

In a 3/13/09 WSJ report by S. Mitra Kalita: the Federal Reserve announced that Americans had seen their net worth fall by $11 trillion, or 18%, in 2008. However, a historical perspective is still positive for those adults who have been building equity over the past two decades. “Not accounting for inflation, household wealth more than doubled from 1990 to 2000, and then, after a pause, rose nearly 50% before the bust of 2008.”

But many have not been building equity for two decades. Real estate, primarily their house, accounts for 35 – 40% of the total wealth of most households. Those who invested their house equity in a larger home, or who borrowed against that equity, have watched that equity disappear. The Fed reported that, at the end of 2008, homeowners collectively had only 43% equity in their homes, the lowest level since 1953.

In 1990, Americans had 14% of their wealth in stocks. By 2000, stocks comprised 33% of wealth, slightly more than Americans had in their homes. It was paper wealth. The collapse of the dot.com bubble and the recession after 9/11 “downsized” that stock wealth substantially. In July 2002, the average American retail investor had lost all the stock profits they had made during the 1990s.

The lesson: diversify. As stocks rise, take the money “off the table.” Stocks and houses do not rise in value indefinitely.

Catholic Church

This blog “follows the money”, which takes us to a a bill introduced in the Connecticut legislature, and withdrawn this week in response to protests, that would amend Section 33-279 of Chapter 598 regarding religious corporations.

The bill is in response to a long standing lack of financial accountability in some Roman Catholic churches. Father Emmett Coyne, a retired priest, notes that “I’ve seen pastors simply take money out of the collection before it was tallied.” in an op-ed today.

Here’s the text of the proposed bill – the red text in brackets would be deleted and the underlined text added. Here’s a summary of the changes.

Here’s the text of section 33-279 before this proposed revision – enter the section in the search box. Connecticut law requires corporations to have “one or more directors”. Previous law required religious corporations to have one lay person as a member of the board. This amendment stipulates that the board be composed of lay members only.