Sales of new single-family homes dropped in June to the slowest pace in seven months, according to data released Friday that signaled a hiccup for the market.
The annual sales pace for new single-family homes in the U.S. fell 6.8% last month to 482,000, with drops in three of four regions, the U.S. Commerce Department. Only the Northeast saw the sales pace rise.
Economists polled by MarketWatch had expected a June sales rate of 550,000, compared with an original May estimate of 546,000. On Friday the government revised May’s rate to 517,000. While June’s result is disappointing, economists caution over reading too much into a single monthly report. A confidence interval of plus-or-minus 12.5% for June’s drop of 6.8% shows that the government isn’t sure whether the sales pace rose or fell last month.
Trends signal improvement, with June’s sales pace up 18.1% from a year earlier.
“Even the disappointing June reading still represents progress over a longer time horizon,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont Securities. “I view today’s reading for the typically volatile new home sales data as statistical noise.”
The median price of new homes fell to $281,800 in June, down 1.8% from a year earlier.
Recent new-home sales and building rates remain far below long-term averages. But a strong jobs market is expected to support rising home sales by helping more families afford ownership. Earlier this week, mortgage-finance giant Fannie Mae raised its 2015 expectations for U.S. home sales, upping its forecast for new and used homes. A mortgage-industry group also cranked up its forecast this week, raising its expectations for mortgage originations.
Elsewhere in the housing market, a recent report on existing homes, which make up the bulk of the residential-sales market, showed strong growth for June. However, economists warned about getting too excited over that flurry of activity, noting that some of the recent buying growth may reflect buyers rushing to lock in mortgage rates before they rise further.
Privately-owned housing starts in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,174,000, up 9.8% (±19.9%) above the revised May estimate of 1,069,000 and is 26.6% (±19.6%) above the June 2014 rate of 927,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Most of the gains in starts and permits were in multifamily, not single-family contruction.
But the problem is single-family housing starts in June were at a rate of 685,000, 0.9% (±11.5%) below the revised May figure of 691,000. The June rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 476,000.
“While the rise in housing starts was driven by an uptick in multifamily housing, there are positive signs looming for the single-family housing market,” said Bill Banfield, vice president at Quicken Loans. “Homebuilder confidence is at its highest level in almost a decade and the number of first-time homebuyers looking to enter the market is increasing – making programs like FHA even more vital to support continued growth.”
Privately-owned housing units authorized by building permits in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,343,000. This is 7.4 % (±1.2%) above the revised May rate of 1,250,000 and is 30.0 % (±2.3%) above the June 2014 estimate of 1,033,000.
“Housing construction has nearly returned to pre-recessionary levels, as builders ramped up activity on multi-family projects including condos and co-ops,” saidStifel Chief Economist Lindsey Piegza. “While builders and lenders benefit regardless of the type of construction, the economic benefit, however, is significantly greater from single family construction as opposed to multi-family units, particularly rental properties; single family housing activity results in additional spending and borrowing power as a result of equity building which is not necessarily present in multi-family properties.
“The housing market continues to take steps in the right direction, however, growth remains far from robust; as we have seen in the recent decline in retail sales, consumers continue to struggle to afford purchases – particularly large ticket items – amid stagnant income growth,” she said. “Still, with the threat of rising rates on the near horizon, some homeowners are jumping in to lock in low rates. As we saw during the taper tantrum of 2013, despite a still-sluggish ability to finance a home purchase, many potential homeowners are willing to jump into the market sooner than later if it means avoiding a significantly higher mortgage rate.”
Single-family authorizations in June were at a rate of 687,000; this is 0.9 % (±1.1%) above the revised May figure of 681,000. Authorizations of units in buildings with five units or more were at a rate of 621,000 in June.
Freddie Mac today released the results of its Primary Mortgage Market Survey® (PMMS®), showing an investor flight to safety for U.S. Treasuries is pushing average fixed mortgage rates lower and helping to keep buyer activity strong toward the close of the spring homebuying season.
News Facts
30-year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) averaged 4.04 percent with an average 0.6 point for the week ending July 9, 2015, down from last week when it averaged 4.08 percent. A year ago at this time, the 30-year FRM averaged 4.15 percent.
15-year FRM this week averaged 3.20 percent with an average 0.5 point, down from last week when it averaged 3.24 percent. A year ago at this time, the 15-year FRM averaged 3.24 percent.
5-year Treasury-indexed hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) averaged 2.93 percent this week with an average 0.4 point, down from last week when it averaged 2.99 percent. A year ago, the 5-year ARM averaged 2.99 percent.
1-year Treasury-indexed ARM averaged 2.50 percent this week with an average 0.3 point, down from last week when it averaged 2.52 percent. At this time last year, the 1-year ARM averaged 2.40 percent.
Average commitment rates should be reported along with average fees and points to reflect the total upfront cost of obtaining the mortgage. Visit the following links for theRegional and National Mortgage Rate Details and Definitions. Borrowers may still pay closing costs which are not included in the survey.
Quote Attributed to Sean Becketti, chief economist, Freddie Mac.
“Yields on Treasury securities declined this week in response to investor concerns about events in Greece and China. Mortgage rates fell as well, although not by as much as government bond yields. The rate on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages fell 4 basis points to 4.04 percent.”
“Overseas volatility is likely to persist for some time, providing some restraint on potential U.S. rate increases. In addition, the minutes of the June meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee suggest the Federal Reserve will proceed cautiously — monitoring events both overseas and in the U.S. to ascertain the appropriate moment to begin raising short-term interest rates. As a result, mortgage rates may remain in the neighborhood of 4 percent for a while.”
If you’ve gone through the painstaking process of renting a new apartment in the past few years, you probably faced some sticker-shock. Vacancy rates are low, really low. And despite ever-present scaffolding, construction in many cities is still slow, as new tenants move in but few move out. The result is that in almost every major metro area, the rent is, in fact, too damn high.
Basic wisdom (which was largely established by rules governing public housing eligibility) warns a healthy bank account means that one’s housing costs shouldn’t exceed about one-third of a person’s take home pay. While that might be a prudent suggestion because, after all, people do have other bills and savings goals, it’s become virtually impossible to adhere to for many who live in major metro areas.
A recent report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) at Harvard, puts some numbers on just how bad this problem is: About half of all renters in the U.S. are using more than 30 percent of their income to cover housing costs, and about 25 percent have rent that exceeds 50 percent of their monthly pay.
It’s not just the poorest city-dwellers who are feeling the rent pressure. As prices rise, even those who make median incomes are finding that their rent eats away at a more significant portion of their pay than it once did for those in the middle class. It’s also not just the Millennial crowd: This problem is also evident across different age groups, including Gen X and Boomers who never left the rental market, or find themselves back in it after the housing crash.
A big part of the problem is that fewer households are making the transition from renting to owning, which means more competition for limited inventory—driving rental prices up. Renters who would previously be able to qualify for mortgages are either finding that mortgage lenders are still super strict post-recession, or that there simply aren’t many homes in their price range—or both. “In normal times when homeownership was achievable you could get a starter home for between $150,000 to $250,000,” says Andrew Jakabovics, a senior director at Enterprise Community Partners, a nonprofit that focuses on affordable housing. “That segment of the market is basically dead.”
So instead, households with higher incomes and dreams of white picket fences remain in the rental market. Those households take up available units in the mid-to-high price ranges, for which they can afford to pay a premium. In fact, renters with incomes that top $75,000 are among the fastest growing group in the market, says Chris Herbert, the managing director of the JCHS. “Developers will be drawn to build the houses that provide the highest returns,” he says. That means not enough new apartments are affordable apartments that can accommodate low- and middle-income residents. Instead, high-priced luxury units get built first, pushing rents up and middle and low-income earners into apartments that are more expensive than they can afford. Sometimes this means pricing them out of cities altogether.
There’s been a dramatic change in the assistance offered to struggling homeowners.
In February, 49% of borrowers with a loan backed by federally controlled housing-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received modifications that only extended the length of their mortgage. That share was up 20 percentage points from a year earlier, according to a report from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates the government sponsored enterprises. Over that same time period, the share of borrowers receiving a modification that combined an extended term with other actions, such as a rate reduction and principal forbearance, fell by 19 percentage points.
Similar trends are seen in quarterly data from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which publishes a snapshot of the U.S. mortgage market. According to the OCC, the chance that a modification included a term extension rose by 10% in 2014. Meanwhile, the likelihood dropped 15% for a rate reduction and 66% for a principal deferral. The reason? The big rise in home prices since 2012.
“As the market improves, the number of borrowers who are in deep distress goes down, so the average modification tends to get lighter because they don’t need to provide as much relief,” said Jim Parrott, a former housing-policy adviser for the White House’s National Economic Council and a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.
Also, as time has passed, the pool of borrowers who are eligible for the most rigorous modifications has narrowed.
Officials have tweaked mortgage-help programs since the bubble burst, including an important change in 2014 to enable borrowers with loan-to-value ratios under 80% to receive a GSE modification that will generally only extend the term of a mortgage. Thanks to rising home prices — they bottomed out in early 2012 and are now about 9% down from a bubble peak — owners have become increasingly likely to have equity.
“The practice of providing a modification to somebody with significant equity is fairly new,” said Julia Gordon, senior director for housing and consumer finance at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank in Washington. “The assumption in the past, pre-crisis, was if you get into terrible trouble with your mortgage, your solution was to downsize.”
If I had to depend on Wall Street or Washington for an explanation of what ails the U.S. financial economy, I’d probably pick neither one. My choice would be John Griffin, a cowboy boots-wearing University of Texas financial professor, who has been on something of a roll.
Six years before Standard & Poor’s agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle state and federal government lawsuits alleging it inflated credit ratings on securitized mortgage debt, Griffin revealed—with mathematical precision—how S&P degraded its own analytical model to issue puffed-up grades.
Seven months before J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to pay $13 billion to resolve state and federal claims that it misled investors on toxic mortgage securities—the largest financial settlement with a single entity in U.S. history—Griffin showed how the bank had originated a disproportionate share of securitized mortgages flawed by undisclosed second liens (among other reporting problems).
Today, Griffin is advancing a new argument: that housing prices were more inflated—and the crash even more violent—in markets where lenders who misreported mortgages held concentrated market shares. He concludes that big banks with bad practices drove the credit bubble, and the misreporting deepened it.
“I just want to know the truth,” says Griffin, 45, who grew up playing high school football in Texas and today delivers some of his hardest hits on Wall Street.
In his latest forensic work, Griffin and co-author Gonzalo Maturana, an assistant professor of finance at Emory University in Atlanta, combed through 3.1 million mortgages originated between 2002 and the end of 2007. More than one-quarter of these loans subsequently defaulted.
While looking for inconsistencies in appraisal values and owner-occupancy status, the most interesting part of the investigation exposes how some mortgage securities were riddled with undisclosed second liens. These hidden debts reduced the borrowers’ incentive to repay their obligations. Griffin and Maturana found the gaps by comparing bank securities documents to county courthouse records.
No fewer than 10.2% of the securitized mortgages in their sample contained an undisclosed second lien. Some lenders, such as Barclays and J.P. Morgan Chase, produced nearly double the overall number of missing debts. This is startling for two reasons: first, loans with an unreported lien were 97% more likely to become seriously delinquent than were correctly reported loans; and second, the same lender originated both liens more than two-thirds of the time.
Barclays and J.P. Morgan not only had the highest levels of misreported second liens, but also the highest aggregated misreporting across all categories analyzed, according to Griffin and Maturana’s research. They also discovered owner-occupancy inconsistencies are based on county tax records mailed to a non-business address other than the purchased residence. And they tracked aberrations in appraisal value based on human appraisals that were 20% higher than a standard model-based valuation. This is a conservative measure, four times higher than a statistically significant 5% deviation.
Of the 18 largest players in the securitized market, the highest misreporting was Barclays at 41.5% and J.P. Morgan at 41%, the research finds. J.P. Morgan and Barclays both declined to comment.
Adding to the skepticism, loans with unreported second liens typically bore higher interest rates than correctly reported loans, meaning that lenders “were seemingly aware of and accounted for the second-lien risk,” according to the research, titled “Who Facilitated Misreporting in Securitized Loans?”
These undisclosed second liens spiked “significantly” around benchmark credit thresholds, meaning the omitted debts might have helped borrowers obtain the loans, on the one hand, and helped lenders to securitize them on another.
“This type of misreporting derives from the originator’s incentives to securitize,” Griffin and Maturana conclude in their paper, which is slated for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Finance.
Such analysis cuts closer than conventional blame-shifting that would hold faceless borrowers, and expansionary government credit policies, accountable.
And that takes us to Griffin’s latest research, which seeks to answer the question of whether lenders that misreported important mortgage information, played a calculable role in driving up home prices—and deepening the crash.
In this new study, titled “Did Dubious Mortgage Origination Practices Distort House Prices?” Griffin and Maturana looked at a universe of about 5,000 ZIP codes across the country. They drilled down to individual streets, where 15% or more of the home mortgages were originated by the same suspect lenders identified in the earlier study. They compared this to similar houses sold in other ZIP codes where the lenders originated less than 5% of the purchase transactions.
Unsurprisingly—based on the compounding effect of such bad practices—Griffin and Maturana found that home prices rose 63% in 858 ZIP codes with high concentrations of lenders they believe misreported mortgage information from 2003 to 2006. This contrasts with a 36% price increase in 4,318 ZIP codes with a lower presence of such originators. On the downside, from 2007 to 2012, prices decreased 40% in ZIP Codes with the higher concentrations of bad originating practices, almost double the 21% decline elsewhere.
In a May 2015 survey conducted by NAHB, 62 percent of builders reported that the overall supply of developed lots in their areas was low to very low, up 2 percent from May 2014, but up from 43 percent in September 2012. Sixty-two percent is the largest low supply percentage recorded since NAHB began periodically asking the question in 1997 on its monthly survey for the NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI).
The continued low supply of developed lots is a hindrance to housing recovery that is still quite modest by most standards. Figure 1 compares the HMI responses on lot supply to housing starts. Starts have recovered from a low of 550,000 in 2009 to just over 1 million in 2014 (after averaging 1.5 million a year from 1960-2000, without ever plunging below 1 million until 2008).
The 62 percent includes 39 percent who characterized the supply of lots simply as “low” and 23 percent who said the supply of lots was “very low.” The shortages tended to be especially acute in the most desirable, or “A” locations. Thirty-four percent of builders said that the supply of “A” lots was very low, compared to 19 percent for lots in “B” and 14 percent for lots in “C” locations.
A shortage of buildable lots, especially in the most desirable locations translates into higher prices, as 38 percent of home builders said the price of developed “A” lots was somewhat higher than it was a year ago, and 32 percent said the price was substantially higher. In comparison, 16 percent of builders said the price of “B” lots was substantially higher than a year ago, and 12 percent said the price of “C” lots was substantially higher (Figure 2).
NAHB analysis of Census construction spending data finds that over the last year, the pace of private single-family construction spending increased 7.8% and multifamily construction spending increased 23.4%, despite monthly declines for March.
For the month, the seasonally adjusted annual rate of single-family construction spending was $200.7 billion, down 1.8% from February. The March rate of multifamily construction spending was $49.2 billion, 2.1% lower than February.
The construction data (indexed in the graph below, so that the January 2000 pace is equal to 100 for both variables) illustrate the degree to which multifamily spending is thus far leading the recovery for the residential construction sector. NAHB expects gains for multifamily to slow in 2015, while single-family construction increases.
It is worth noting that the Census measure for total private residential construction spending shows a 2.6% year-over-year decline, despite annual gains for single-family and multifamily development. This decline is due to a decrease in the separate improvement category, which contrasts with other measures, including theNAHB Remodeling Market Index, which indicates strength for the home improvement sector.
From March 2014, the pace of combined public and private non-residential construction spending increased 4.7% on a seasonally adjusted annual rate basis to $611.8 billion. From February 2015, non-residential spending was effectively flat, declining 0.1%.
The largest year-over-year gains for nonresidential construction spending have been experienced by the classes of manufacturing-related construction (50.7% gain), amusement/recreation (23.8%), lodging (22%), office (19.8%), and sewage/waste disposal (19.6%).
After a disappointing set of housing data last month, recent reports suggest a return to trend for home building as the nation enters the spring home buying season.
Home builders reversed a one-month decline in sentiment as the April NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI) increased 4 points to 56 in April from a one-point downwardly revised 52 in March. The bounce back up to the January-February average suggests the March observation was an outlier.
All three components of the HMI rebounded to or above the early part of 2015. The current sales index rose three points to 61, matching the February level and standing just one point below the January report. The expected sales component rose five points to 64, the highest in 2015, and the traffic component rose four points to 41. The solid and significant increase in expectations suggests builders are expecting the market to continue growing.
Consistent with this rebound in market sentiment, Census-estimated housing starts increased 2% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 926,000 in March. Single-family starts increased 4.4% to a 618,000 rate. Multifamily starts dropped to a 308,000 pace, the lowest monthly rate since September 2013. Most of this decline in apartment construction was concentrated in the West.
Permits were down 5.7% overall, mostly due to a 15.9% loss in multifamily, evenly spread across three of the four regions. Northeast multifamily permits rose 55% to 90,000, the highest since June 2008, when a code change caused a one-time jump. The remaining three regions accounted for a 108,000 fall, offsetting the 48,000 increase in the Northeast. Single-family permits rose 2.1% to a 636,000 rate, with only the West showing a decline of 2% or down 3,000 to a 146,000 permits pace for March
