mcarristo

In early 2000, the S&P 500 hit 1,553 and the tech-heavy NASDAQ surpassed 5,000. Two years later the S&P was at 768 and the NASDAQ was at 800! In the process, $6 trillion in household wealth was wiped out. We now call that period the dot-com bubble. About half a decade later, we experienced the housing market bubble. Interestingly, the value of residential real estate destroyed during that crisis was also about $6 trillion. Yet the dot-com bubble resulted in a mild recession while the housing bust lead to the Great Recession.   What was different? It turns a major culprit was which households suffered the destruction of wealth.
To set the table, ponder this: During the housing bust, retail spending fell 8% from 2007 to 2009, one of the largest drops ever. By contrast, retail spending increased by 5% between 2000 and 2002. Clearly, the losses sustained during the dot-com bust had minimal impacts on household spending decisions and thus on the overall economy. Here is why.
The decline in home prices that began in 2007 was highly concentrated among households with very limited financial resources. As a result, these now much-poorer households dramatically pulled back on spending and in the process unwittingly helped usher in the Great Recession. Remember, retail spending is about a quarter of GDP, so a decline of 8% over two years reduces GDP by 2% — a huge amount. It is as if these poorer households were the transmission mechanism through which the Great Recession got its energy.
Exacerbating and reinforcing this downward spiral was the role of debt or leverage. Remember, by 2004 or 2005 a large percentage of first-time home buyers had low FICO scores, sketchy employment histories and limited assets. To compensate, these Alt-A and subprime buyers borrowed heavily with their now highly levered house being their major financial asset. For example, among the poorest quintile of the population, 80% of their net worth is in their house. Even among the middle quintile, home equity is still 60% of their net worth. By borrowing so much, just a small decline in house prices could put these buyers upside down and wipe them out. Which is exactly what happened and is what turned a recession into the Great Recession. Between 2007 and 2010 the bottom 20% of the population saw their net worth fall from about $30,000 to zero.
By contrast, the financial losses sustained during the dot-com bubble were essentially walled off and had relatively little effect on the overall economy. This is because stock ownership is concentrated among the wealthy. As the wealthy have less debt and more assets, they could essentially shrug off the much larger financial losses they sustained yet not have them alter their day-to-day spending decisions. Among the wealthiest 20% of the population, home equity represents just 25% of their net worth. Moreover, depression-era federal laws make it hard to borrow more than 50% of the cost of stock purchases, thereby limiting the potentially negative role of leverage.
In short, the home buyers who bought in 2004 and 2005 had limited wealth and had more of it at risk than earlier home buyers. When the music stopped they were highly levered and wholly unable to protect themselves. That quickly resulted in (among other things) reduced spending, which shrank GDP and quickly cascaded into the Great Recession.
Elliot Eisenberg, Ph.D. is President of GraphsandLaughs, LLC and can be reached at Elliot@graphsandlaughs.net. His daily 70 word economics and policy blog can be seen at www.econ70.com.
By: Elliot Eisenberg (GraphsandLaughs)
Click here to view source website.

A satellite designed and built by teams from Kirtland Air Force Base and the Albuquerque technology company ATA Aerospace was successfully launched Monday afternoon.
The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Automated Navigation and Guidance Experiment for Local Space (ANGELS) satellite was sent aloft at 5:28 p.m. from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The satellite was originally scheduled for launch on July 24, but that had been delayed several times because of adverse weather.
The satellite features a sensor that can evaluate techniques for detecting and tracking objects in space. Its operation is being managed by the AFRL Space Vehicles Directorate, which is located at Kirtland.
A news release issued by the laboratory said more than 50 military, civilian, and contractor personnel will be behind the operation of the satellite for about a year.
To see a video of the launch, click here.
By: Gary Gerew (Albuquerque Business First)
Click here to view source article.

New management options emerge as major investment players settle into the single-family marketplace. Alan Mallach, a senior fellow at the Center for Community Progress, shares his thoughts.
JULY 2014 | BY MARIWYN EVANS

When large investors such as Blackstone and Colony American Homes began buying up single-family homes in 2011, most observers considered the acquisition a short-term play. Now, although acquisition has slowed, the successful securitization of SFH rental income by Invitation Homes (a Blackstone subsidiary), the transformation into REITs of large single-family owners such as American Homes 4 Rent, and the creation of the National Rental Home Council, a group that includes most of these new mega-investors, all indicate large investors are in it for a longer haul. How will their business models change the dynamics of the rental marketplace?
How large a presence do these mega single-family owners represent in rental markets?
At the end of 2013, mega-investors controlled about 200,000 single-family properties. That’s not much in a national market of 13 million single-family home rentals. It’s certainly not a game changer. Still, within certain niche markets in cities such as Atlanta, Phoenix, and Tampa, mega-investors are more of a factor. Most of these buyers have concentrated on a dozen or so cities with good potential for price appreciation. The one exception is American Homes 4 Rent, which owns properties in many more markets. Even within these markets, mega–investors won’t buy just anything. They are buying mostly homes priced between 100 and 140 percent of median price in locations where the sales price-to-rent ratio is favorable enough to yield a 5 to 10 percent annual cash flow with a five- to eight-year hold period.
Which segments of the multifamily market are most vulnerable to competition from these new single-family properties?
The demand for rentals is increasing, especially in moderate and middle-income groups that a few years ago might have bought homes. Single-family rentals have always attracted families with children who want a larger space with a yard. Homes owned by mega-investors may also attract renters willing to pay a premium if they can deliver the more professional management these large owners propose to offer. And relocation companies may be attracted to the extensive portfolios held by mega-investors.
Will the mega-investors benefit from technology and economies of scale?
The jury is still out on that. Single-family management requires a lot of hands-on involvement. One management option is to partner with local third-party management companies that already handle large pools of single-family rentals for small investors. Other potential partners might be large local investors. Perhaps the most successful model will end up looking more like a franchise with local managers who have some financial interest.
By: Mariwyn Evans (REALTORMag)
Click here to view source article.