Economic data is inherently backwards looking. Forecasts, estimates and any other prediction of the future is a stab in the dark likely based on an esoteric predictive model and a bunch of educated guesses. And of all the economic phenomena, the hardest of all to predict is the cusp, the turning point.

Nevertheless, despite the cards being stacked against them, bold economists are stepping out on the proverbial limb and saying the housing market is healing and more than three years of declines are running their course. Their analysis is based on looking at history, then some extrapolation of how millions of unique economic actions, geopolitical strife, global financial markets and unpredictable political feuds will play out.

The future, as they say, is yet unwritten.

Consider these two reports, both written in the last 48 hours:

From Bloomberg: Existing Home Sales Hover Near Average. “Sales of existing US homes in March stayed near a four-month average, and prices rose from February, a sign the housing recession has stopped getting worse.”

Now, from Housing Wire: (a great place for housing-related news and analysis) Delinquencies and Defaults Up, Up and Away. “Delinquencies and defaults are on the rise, due mainly to a handful of circumstances, including the backlog from recent foreclosure moratoria, a jump in unemployment and even a slight rise in marital spats. Prime loans 60+ days delinquent increased by 69.6% from November 2008 to January 2009.”

Which data do you think is more predictive of how the housing market will perform in the future?

Existing home sales – transactions that happened 20-50 days ago, meaning contracts were signed back in January or February; or a spike in defaults which will turn into foreclosures, bank owned properties and more homes on the market later this year?

We rest our case.

DO NOT believe the hype: The housing market is still in decline, any stabilization theories are fallacy.

By ANDREW JEFFERY

This post first appeared on Minyanville.

Simply put: There are too many homes in America.

Travel to the outskirts of Phoenix, California’s inland empire — or even suburban Washington, DC — and you’ll find scores of vacant homes, for-sale signs, and soon-to-be ghost towns. Sprawling Lennar (LEN) cookie-cutter developments, Pulte Home (PHM) condos jammed against freeway sound barriers, mostly vacant strip malls – these are not the relics of dynamic social progress.

There are many who believe that superfluous developments in the so-called exurbs must be razed for housing supply to return to anything like sustainable levels.

But few expect the bulldozers to reach the urban downtown. Just as the “subprime” mortgage problem began in areas where economic fundamentals fell hopelessly out of sync with home prices, so too will urban renewal rise from the ashes of these communities.

Take Flint, Michigan, a city looking to shrink itself just to stay alive.

This once-proud industrial town 65 miles north of Detroit is embracing a trend which may eventually spread to cities throughout the United States: In response to seemingly endless economic woes, government officials in Flint are considering hastening the town’s decline in order to rebuild anew.

The New York Times reports that city leaders have floated a plan whereby certain dilapidated neighborhoods would be razed to the ground, consolidating residents and businesses closer to downtown. The aim is to reorganize the population around fewer, more sustainable communities, thereby pushing run-down homes and empty lots to the outskirts of town.

While uprooting citizens is a prickly political topic, the county Treasurer and advocate of the shrinking of Flint grimly noted that “Not everyone’s going to win. But now, everyone’s losing.”

Foreclosures, the latest in a series of economic epidemics to sweep Flint, are causing formerly vibrant communities to turn to dust. Genesee County, of which Flint is the largest town, in addition to Indianapolis and Little Rock, Arkansas, are tackling the foreclosure issue with county land banks. These publicly-funded institutions buy unwanted properties and rehabilitate them before squatters and vandals can take over.

Contrast this government-led form of community development with the policies now operative at Wells Fargo (WFC), Citigroup (C) and Bank of America (BAC) to leave bank owned homes vacant and ripe for vandalism, and you have an example of government policy that can speed up the recovery of a local real estate market.

And while Flint’s situation may be unique in that it faces the twin headwinds of the auto industry’s demise and the ongoing housing market collapse, it’s root troubles are emblematic of towns across the country: Cities, expectant of growth that never came, supported development that proved unsustainable.

Myriad solutions have been proposed to solve this country’s housing nightmare, but the simplest, and indeed the most effective may be to simply reduce supply the old-fashioned way, with bulldozers.

By ANDREW JEFFERY

This post first appeared on Minyanville.

Countrywide was to subprime lending what Thornburg Mortgage was to jumbo-prime.

Now, both are out of business.

Thornburg said it expects to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, ending a nearly 2-year struggle to fend off creditors and survive the credit crunch. The company, once the country’s second largest independent mortgage lender, specialized in making jumbo loans to borrowers perceived to have little credit risk. Ever since the market for its mortgage-backed securities evaporated in the summer of 2007, however, Thornurg has been under siege.

In what now seems like ancient history, Countrywide nearly collapsed as its short-term commercial papers seized up, and investors fled Thornburg in droves. The Federal Reserve stepped in and shocked the market back to life, but the revival was short-lived. Enough damage had been done that any financial institution holding even highly rated securities backed by residential mortgages had a target on its back.

Thornburg’s stock was delisted last December as a series of last-ditch efforts by CEO Larry Goldstone failed to save the company. With investors buying nothing by government-backed Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) mortgages, Thornburg’s bread and butter — jumbo loans — became virtually worthless.

Although Thornburg’s demise was a foregone conclusion months ago, the fate of a company many once believed immune illustrates how far we’ve come from what began as a “subprime” problem.

High-end real estate is now fully engaged in the nation’s housing slump. Prime loans are souring faster than subprime ones as job losses spread up the socioeconomic ladder. Manhattan’s real-estate market is in the news again, as sales continue to plunge and prices follow suit.

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, where expensive homes dominate many markets, high-end buying activity has slowed to a trickle. The chart below, from Cirios Real Estate shows purchases over $1,000,000 since the broader housing market peaked in 2005. Even without the statistical wizardry of seasonal adjusting the data, the trend is clear: America’s wealthy aren’t buying.

click to enlarge

Sales figures don’t look much better in the first quarter of this year, even though broad sales activity is up month-over-month. The bifurcation of the real-estate market continues, as troubles in the high end are picking up the slack while low-end markets grope for a bottom.

Foreclosures are even happening in some of the country’s wealthiest communities. In many of these markets, denial reigns as owners clong to the belief that the slump is temporary, their paper losses transitory. But as deleveraging continues, asset prices continue to fall, and forced liquidations creep towards the very wealthy, reality is slowly setting in.

Following a pattern set with both existing home sales and new homes sales, pending home sales bounced in February, up 2.1% from the previous month. The National Association of Realtors’ released its monthly index that tracks the number of signed contracts, showing a gain to 82.1, from 80.4 in January. A reading under 100 indicates a depressed market.

It seems everyone is jumping on the home buying wagon, even the chief economist at Standard and Poors is getting bullish “We are seeing a bottom in housing sales. People are coming in as bargain hunters. This is a good time to be buying a house.”

Meanwhile, home prices keep tumbling — the S&P Chase/Shiller Home Price Index recorded its worst monthly decline on record and one Barclays analyst said she doesn’t expect home prices to bottom until next year

Typically, home sales find a bottom prior to prices. As inventory is worked off, supply becomes more constricted and the power slowly shifts away from buyers and towards sellers. In the frenzy to be the first to accurately call a bottom, bold analysts are throwing caution, and the notion that one month does not a trend make, to the wind.

But rest assured, those same analysts will be calling this pop an anomaly when the data come around in another 30 days.

By ANDREW JEFFERY

This post first appeared on Minyanville.

After nearly 3 years of bleeding cash, US homebuilders are on shaky ground.

The market for new homes is being decimated by rampant overbuilding during the boom, and by the flood of bank-owned properties now being sold on the cheap. Prices remain in free fall. Even as labor expenses and materials costs hover around recent lows, the business of building new homes is still broken.

But after 2 “positive” datapoints last week, and KB Home’s (KBH) narrower-than-expected loss, many are wondering if the worst is now behind the beleaguered industry. Government-backed efforts to keep mortgage rates low and encourage home buying could save the builders. Maybe.

New home construction, for all its complications and intricacies, is a rather simple business: Sell homes for more than it costs to build them.

New homes have traditionally carried a premium to “used” ones; the median sale price of a new home is currently about 20% higher than that of one that’s been previously owned. Builders relied on this premium to cover their construction and financing costs, not to mention to generate a healthy profit. But now that buyers can buy barely used houses at fire-sale prices, the allure of the brand-new is on the wane.

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, banks are said to literally be giving land away for free: Builders will have nothing to do with it. The costs associated with owning improved lots (in other words, lots ready for the construction of a house) are too high for – even if they’re offered for free. Building just isn’t an economically viable option - and it won’t be until housing prices rebound.

And that could take years.

Meanwhile, homebuilders like KB Home and rivals Centex (CTX), Lennar (LEN) and DR Horton (DHI) are struggling to rid themselves of unsold homes. Builders large and small are slashing prices, trimming staff, hawking vacant land for pennies on the dollar, and doing anything else they can think of to stay alive.

Many face an additional headwind this year: Tax rebates from previous operating losses will be drying up. Debt remains high, and cash is barely trickling in.

Ultimately, some big builders won’t make it. The market, both for equities and default protection in the form of credit default swaps, is betting on Hovnanian (HOV), Beazer Home (BZH) and Standard Pacific (SPF) to be the first of the big dogs to fail.

Those hoping to survive are rapidly adjusting their strategies to adapt to the changing demands of the American homebuyer. As Minyanville’s Terry Woo noted on Friday, KB Home’s better-than-expected earings were partly a reflection of a switch to smaller, cheaper homes.

This is a positive trend: it’s yet another indicator that Americans have a newfound love affair with thrift. And while we may lose a few builders along the way, I doubt we’ll miss all those identical, pre-fabricated houses that had come to litter our landscape.

By ANDREW JEFFERY

This post first appeared on Minyanville.

The answer? An emphatic no. This is simply the latest example of legal plunder perpetrated by the federal government against law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

The Obama administration’s scheme to help troubled borrowers centers on subsidizing interest payments, which would help borrowers make ends meet without angering those investors expecting full payments each month. This marks the first time the government is intervening directly with taxpayer funds to ease the burden of monthly mortgage payments.

Bloomberg reports the plan will be voluntary for lenders like Wells Fargo (WFC), Citigroup (C) and Bank of America (BAC), and will employ many of the tactics previous modification efforts have used (ineffectively), such as loan extensions and principal reductions. Modifications identified as having a net present value will be targeted, where foreclosing would be more expensive than changing the loan terms.

The program aims to establish a standard for loan modifications that can be used industry-wide. That’s an absurd claim, which demonstrates the extent to which lawmakers misunderstand the scope of the problem. It’s a bit like saying every American must cut their hair the same way: It would be laughable it weren’t so sad.

Each mortgage, each borrower, each lender, each home is unique; each situation is different. Individual banks can barely standardize the documents required to close a loan, so the notion that there can be one standard for approving a loan modification — an intensely complicated procedure involving countless interested parties — is ridiculous.

It would be one thing if the plan offered even the remotest possibility of stabilizing the housing market. It doesn’t. The few borrowers who may be helped will have little effect on a massive, disjointed housing market that remains determined to run its course despite government efforts to stop the bleeding.

The societal implications of this program are downright frightening.

Washington cutting checks to borrowers who can’t make their mortgage payments sounds like a benevolent act attempt to reach down to struggling families — and in some cases, it may certainly help. But it also fosters dependency on the federal government and incentivizes bad behavior.

It now appears we’ve reached a point in this crisis where differentiating between those worthy of help and those left to pick up the tab is determined primarily by how poorly one managed their personal finances. The worse the decision, the greater the federal assistance – and it’s true for government bailouts of bad choices on the part of individuals and institutions alike.

The message this sends to the rest of us – those who are still living up to their obligations and trying in good faith to eke out a living during tough times: Throw in the towel.