This post first appeared in the SPECIAL EDITION: Cirios Trends: A Decade in Flux

The books are officially closed on a decade which will be remembered for an historic real estate boom in the United States that busted in spectacular fashion, nearly taking the entire world financial system down with it.

Of course, the real story is a touch more complicated: Our housing bust was merely the most glaring crack in a global economy that grew far too dependent on cheap debt, where flows of money around the world magnetized to the hot asset, blowing bubbles first in stocks, then real estate, then commodities.

During each subsequent bust, governments rushed to the aide of markets, stitching them up with a patchwork of looser regulations, low interest rates and promises it would never happen again.

Late in 2008, the collapse of the credit markets culminated in the failure of some of this country’s most storied financial institutions. When the dust settled, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch,
Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Countrywide and a host of smaller, lesser known entities had either gone bust or been bought for a song by stronger, better capitalized firms.

Some simply melted into this or that government agency, while many members of our financial complex survived only with historic government aide. Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, GM and Chrysler are alive today thanks to massive taxpayer-funded bailouts.

But enough looking behind us; historians and journalists will be employed for decades slicing and dicing this most turbulent of decades.

Surveying the horizon, the primary fear among economists, investors and ordinary Americans is that the inflationary effects of pumping trillions of dollars into an economy must eventually come home to roost.

To be sure, there are those who remain firmly in the camp that believes the more pressing concern is inflation’s less-well understood counterpart, deflation. But even the most ardent deflationists believe theirs is a debate that is more accurately painted as one of time horizons, rather than absolutes.

The US dollar is in the crosshairs of this philosophic, as well as very practical debate. The greenback’s standing as the global reserve currency has been thrown into question as investors around the world scratch their collective heads and try to figure out how we’ll ever repay our staggering, ever-growing debt.

And now, as our economy appears to be slowly healing, the Federal Reserve faces the unenviable task of withdrawing its generous stimulus. In March, the Fed plans to scale back its purchases of mortgage backed securities, spooking more than a few market participants.

The fear, particularly for the housing market, is that any Fed pullback will push up interest rates.

Higher interest rates translate into lower purchasing power for buyers, curtailing the steady stream of homebuying demand that, coupled with ongoing foreclosure moratoria, has propped up prices in recent months.

We kick off 2010 with mortgage rates approaching the all-time lows set last spring. Sure, they could always go lower, but the smart money is betting it’s just a matter of time before rising prices force regulators to ease their foot off the monetary accelerator. Higher mortgage rates are likely on the horizon.

So as we begin the first true test of our nascent economic recovery, Cirios would like to take you through a bit of history. We’ll look first at the macroeconomic picture as it relates to home prices, inflation and interest rates. Next we’ll examine a few California real estate markets illustrative of the localized trends masked by most broad economic measures.

But first, a word of caution: As Mark Twain’s oft-cited saying goes, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”

It goes without saying that the financial upheaval of the past 24 months has been, in a word, unique. There is no historical analogue, no matter how neatly we try to jam this experience into some mold cast in the 1930s, 1970s or 1980s. By extension, any conclusions drawn from this historic perspective should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Nevertheless, understanding where we stand and how we got here is essential to understanding where we’re headed. And understanding where we’re headed is essential to finding and taking advantage of the plentiful investment opportunities the previous decade’s turmoil has created.

NEXT >>

This post first appeared in the SPECIAL EDITION: Cirios Trends: A Decade in Flux

<< PREVIOUS

It stands to reason that falling interest rates leads to higher home prices. After all, for every one percent drop in mortgage rates, buyers can afford around 10% more house. Against that backdrop, the chart below makes sense: After sky-high interest rates of the late 1970s and early 1980s, a consistent decline in interest rates helped usher in an historic increase in home prices.

But, as is often the case when complex macroeconomics are at play, there’s more to the story.

In order to fully understand what on the surface seems like a relatively straightforward relationship, we need to more fully understand what moves mortgage rates, which have such a direct effect on home prices.

Since it’s creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve has been charged with overseeing our nation’s monetary policy and maintaining price stability. Chief among it’s responsibilities is to set the “Federal Funds Rate,” which in simple terms is the rate at which banks lend to one another. Virtually all other borrowing rates are pegged at some “spread” above this baseline rate, based on the perceived riskiness of the loan.

With this tool, the Fed tries to maintain the modicum of inflation it believes strikes the proper balance between economic growth and stable prices. Lower rates encourage growth but push up prices, while higher rates curtail rising prices but at the cost of retarding economic activity.

However, with the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, Congress tacked on another mandate to the Fed’s list of tasks: “long-run economic growth.” The seeming contradiction of “stable prices” and “economic growth” is at the root of the debate over the role of the Fed in our economy.

So, using the logic laid out above, Paul Volcker and his inflation-crushing high interest rates of the 1980s should have sent home prices tumbling. Why then did home prices keep on rising during this period of high mortgage rates? Read on to find out.

(click to enlarge image)

NEXT >>

Below are some details on the Fed’s proposed new mortgage rules courtesy of Briefing.com:

• New final mortgage rules ban prepayment penalties if payment can rise in first 4 years.
• New rules create category of ‘higher-priced mortgages’ including virtually all subprime loans.
• Lenders must verify repayment ability from income, non-home assets for higher-priced mortgages.
• Lenders must assess repayment ability on highest scheduled payment in first 7 years of mortgage.
• Lenders must establish property tax, insurance escrow on higher-priced first-lien mortgages.
• Lenders may offer borrowers opportunity to cancel escrow account after one year.
• Creditors must provide estimate of mortgage costs, payment schedule,within 3 days of application

If mortgage regulators can enforce their new rules on “higher-priced mortgages,” at least as well as they do for “high-cost mortgages,” (which they actually do surprisingly well) this new category of home loan means one thing: don’t bother applying for a mortgage unless you have nearly spotless credit and money in the bank.

And while many would argue this is a much needed change in the mortgage market, it does raise a few questions:

• Won’t this further increase demand for rental units?
• Won’t this force people to save if they want to own a home?
• Isn’t money saved different than money spent?
• Where was this legislation in 2006, at the height of the boom, even when regulators knew what was going on?
• Why do regulators seem to focus so much on making new rules, rather than enforcing the old ones?
• If the mortgage market figured out how to get around the old, “high cost loan” limitations, won’t it eventually work its way around these as well?

While Congress deliberates on the future of the nation’s mortgage market, some within the government are calling for restraint in regulatory reform. Housingwire.com reports William Emmons, an economist at the St. Louis Fed, is calling for patience and social support as the clearest way to economic recovery.

Emmons makes the argument that government intervention, particularly measures aimed at postponing or eliminating the foreclosure process, will only serve to further tighten the credit crunch that already holds the nation’s economy in its teeth. Instead, he believes Federal funds and regulations should be aimed at helping foreclosed homeowners recover from their unsuccessful forays into homeownership. By focusing on the “cause,” rather than the “symptoms” of our current economic woes, and by allowing markets to sort themselves out, Emmons argues prudent, forward-looking regulatory reforms offer us the fastest route to economic health.

Whatever your opinion on upcoming regulatory reforms, it is clear the actions of the government in the coming months will have a massive impact on housing markets and the economy as a whole. Reforms that promote a healthy and functioning mortgage market while protecting borrowers from the types of abuses so prevalent during the boom will allow investors and homeowners alike to make the right choices in the coming years.