主题：牛派大师Tobin Smith怎么说 -- 倥偬飞人
对于想了解牛派怎么看股市，我觉得Tobin Smith可能是个合适的代言人。曾经订阅过他5000美金的news letter，但是觉得不值，退掉了，有意思的是，他的news letter中也包括一份专门做空的，前段时间也做空过subprime lender。我随后再作评论。
March 21, 2007
Toby's Rant: The Subprime Problem … Isn't
Before a few weeks ago, if you heard the word "subprime," you might have thought someone was talking about a bad steak. But by now, everyone knows that subprime has another meaning -- and if you listen to some of these guys, you'll hear that it's going to subsume the entire economy of the United States.
Listen, I started in the financial business in mortgage debt securitization, and I've forgotten more than most of these guys ever knew about this field -- if I do humbly say so. So let me cut through some of the malarkey here so we can get a handle on what is -- and what is not -- happening with the subprime issue.
I am not in any way saying that there aren't people who took out mortgages -- maybe as many as a million people -- who weren't prepared to pay that mortgage off. That is a fact. But we've got to put this in the larger context of the 110 million homeowners in the United States.
About 40% of these folks owned their homes outright by the end of 2006 -- so we have to take those off the table. Now, let's go to the 65 million or so homes that have a mortgage. These are homes and condos out of which about 3.5 million to 5 million have mortgages under this subprime adjustable-rate/toxic mortgage deal.
When I'm checking the numbers, I look at the data from First American Financial, a big title company in Orange County, California. They are the ones who absolutely have their finger on the pulse of what's going on here, and their affiliate First American CoreLogic put out a mortgage payment study just the other day. Click here if you'd like to read more about it.
The finding that paints the most realistic picture -- assuming homes and condominiums don't go up in value for the next six years -- is that, based on an analysis of almost 9 million of these mortgages, First American projects that about 1 million households would ultimately not be able to make payments or would give the keys back because the house has fallen below the value of what the mortgage owner paid for it.
All right, a million homes sounds shocking, like the world is coming to an end -- but remember, we have about 65 million households with mortgages, and we have another 40 million to 45 million homes fully owned free-and-clear.
So let's put this in perspective. If those 1 million homes are foreclosed on -- or sold if they're not foreclosed -- and you subtract the proceeds from the original mortgages, you're talking about losing around $115 billion. That's about 1% of the total mortgage market in the United States. Now, is this 1% going to flip the U.S. economy upside down? Absolutely not!
Bursting Bubbles, Leaking Hedge Funds
Beyond that, you have to take into account who owns these mortgages. Who ultimately owns this stuff after it's all chopped up and diced up and sold in all sorts of packages?
Hedge funds represented by $2 trillion of equity, that's who -- by the way, they're also trillions of dollars of hedges out there against these loans coming apart.
So, come on -- 1% is going to sink the economy? It's not going to happen.
Now let's look at the prospect of five or six years of the real estate market going nowhere. All you have to do is look at the other housing markets that have had bubbles that already burst -- Australia, New Zealand and all of the U.K. -- they've all had huge bubbles. In Ireland, houses are now up 400% or more during the last six years.
Here's my point: We've had housing bubbles in other large, developed countries, and they have burst. And what happened? After about two-and-a-half, maybe three years, they got back to equilibrium and started to grow again. If you look at 2006, U.K. home prices were up about 8%, and in Australia they were up about 9%.
So it's very difficult to make a strong case for the notion that we're going to be in this dark, cold freeze for the next few years.
But let's say home prices go nowhere for six years. Many people (and I will not name names -- Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley) are making the case that the subprime housing bubble bursting is the equivalent of the Nasdaq 2000 Internet bubble fiasco.
I mean, come on people! Let's just look at the facts again. We've talked about the total number of households with mortgages. We've talked about the fact that $110 billion to $115 billion in subprime-based losses is not going to take down a market that's around $10 trillion to $11 trillion.
It just ain't gonna happen: Number one, it's going to be absorbed, and number two, we have demographics on our side here.
The demographics of the 25- to 35-year-old household are growing right now. These are the prime home buyers today. (I guess Steve Roach forgot to mention that part.) Now there is no question that the people who were unqualified are not going to make it, but guess what? We'll barely notice.
Remember, we're not taking 2005 as an example of what a healthy housing market is, because it was not. When we talked about the housing bubble bursting in March 2005, any newspaper you opened had full-page ads about how you're going to make $90,000 every quarter on real estate. Come on, that's not what you'd call healthy -- something had to give, folks. A healthy housing market is really more like the one in 2002 and 2003.
This year, we're going to build more than a million homes. And we're going to sell homes at a normal pace -- not an abnormal pace, just at a normal pace. But guess what? The number of 25- to 35-year-olds is growing, and they've got to buy someplace to live. In the meantime, the 44- to 55-year-old boomers own 85% of their homes already, and some of them are buying second homes. Where? In places that are warm. I mean this is not changing -- these demographics just don't change.
Back to Normal
Now let's look at just the tax aspect for a minute. Unless the government goes insane, the home is still the greatest asset ever invented on the planet from a tax standpoint. You can deduct your interest. You can get a $500,000 exemption on capital gains, and only pay capital gains on top of that.
So is anyone suggesting people are walking away from homes? No. But I do not belittle the ones who will have to -- it could be 400,000; it could even be a million. By the way, the same study mentioned above found that if housing prices were to appreciate just 10% in the next six years, the foreclosure rate would indeed be down to 400,000.
Now let's take a breath. Understand that there are at least hundreds of thousands of Americans who are facing an ugly six- to 12-month future because they got into these toxic mortgages. But, let's not try to connect the dots that aren't there. Let's not assume that this somehow infects the rest of the mortgage business, that it infects the economy, or employment.
We're currently at a 4.5% unemployment rate. Maybe we're going up to a 5% unemployment rate -- but that's tops.
The late 1980s and early 1990s is the last time we truly had a real estate recession -- right now, we have a real estate building recession. But, you know what? That means going down from 1.5 million homes to about 1.2 million. That is not a depression, that's a recession. We have pulled back about 15%-20% -- so we're back to normal.
If the medical care industry were to go down, then we'd be talking. If the technology industry were to go like it did in 2000, that would be enough to bring down the economy. This subprime business is clearly not going to do that.
So, let's not make hasty decisions, and let's not go crazy by selling all our stocks, going to cash and getting into a bunker because subprime mortgages are going to take the economy down. The math just doesn't add up.
I know I've talked to you about it before, but I think you needed to hear it again, because you're going to keep hearing nothing but bad news and more bad news. Hang in there guys, and don't let it get to you.
这位牛兄的讲法不是没有道理，但有点粗糙，特别是关于英国等地的房市，没有其他经济方面的数据。怎么没有提到日本呢？每个国家在特定时期的经济环境都不一样。这样的分析太简单了。
失业率的问题好像这里有人（飞兄？)分析过，数据有问题。
另外现在不是说 subprime 的问题在向 alt-a 转移么？谁知道到底是怎么一回事？影响有多大？
觉着也不是很有力，没有具体数据，大概差不离的样子。这位 Smith 先生好像至少在这段文字上是一大抄手。
没看错，真的是7000美元！听说底特律治安还不好，要不然很多人真的可以到那儿退休的了，7000美元还不够租金的。当供应增加而又没有需求时，就会出现这种情况
其他国家房市泡沫起来的时候，正好全球经济处于扩张期，老百姓购买力强，需求增加，所以有软着陆的机会。
美国除了自己，谁能托的起来？可惜泡泡吹得太大，炒房子的多，真实需求少，等到房价下跌，贷款赖账，极端的供大于求，美国人自己也托不起来了，经济还放缓了，还要衰退，房市的麻烦才刚开始，没个几年的折腾是喘不过气来的。
牛派的想法與熊派差別極大！！
當然如果他的假設成立，影響可能相對少。這亦是華爾街及聯儲局所希望達致的。
但他的假設能成立嗎？即未來數年，樓價牛皮。如果真是這樣的話，以通脹來漸漸消耗這麼多年來形成的泡沫。六七年來樓價不升值的話，以通脹來算，樓價變相下調了數成！！
但樓市是一個illiquid的市場。亦是必需品。那些供滿了的樓宇，而有人居住的，並不會在市場上出現！！而過去樓市狂升，造成的過剩，有待消耗。另一方面，購買力亦消耗不少，如果不是如此，又何會有sub-prime而場？當銀行收緊銀根時，大量的供應，只會推低樓價，到時，他的假設，又如何成立？
未來數月，將是聯儲局如何出力，力圖通過鬆銀根，以確保liquidity不會出問題。但在這情況下，美元幣值又如何？息率又如何？
Helicopter Ben 要出動直升機來派錢，又要人保持美元的信心。看他如何將戲法變出來。
Update New York，那里五万以下的房子一大把，不过人烟渺茫，每年下雪六个月，暖气费两三年下来比房费都贵，还不算没有工作，治安恶劣。
这种掉到7000的房子，送你也不敢去住，多危险的地区呀。两极分化，美国好的地区的房子再掉有限，因为有钱人越来越有钱，而且有钱人因为治安原因，只会挨着有钱人一起住，坏的地区的房子一掉起来没底的，因为没钱的越没钱。
湾区这里的富人区，两百万以上的房子九成都是现金支付的，掉也不会怎么掉，因为掉了他反正没欠款，可以不卖。那些穷人区几十万的掉起来就会非常可怕了，因为都是零首付的。
实际上牛派忽略了一个事实：房屋市场牛气冲天的时候，激发了很多并不真实的需求，就是投机炒房的人 （相对于真正买房自己住的人而言），这些人寄希望于房价升得快然后迅速倒手赚大钱，很多nonprime loan实际上也是这样的投机者。这样的虚假需求在05-06占到交易量的30-40%左右。如今房价大跌，这些人的持有成本极高，因为不一定租的出去，好多地方开发出来都没有人住过，成为所谓ghost town，怎么可能租出去呢？要么咬牙亏本卖出，要么干脆一走了之，尤其是不付头款全部借来的房贷，在房价已经下跌10%甚至30%的时候，walk away比向银行供款更划算。
在经济放缓和衰退的前提下，真实的住房需求并不会增长，而投机者纷纷退出市场，至于不管什么原因交不起房贷的人只有被银行把房子收走拍卖，而房屋建筑公司的销售退订很多，空置率也很高，这样就造成房屋泡沫破裂后待售房屋大大超过了需求，房价只有大幅下跌才能刺激需求。同时由于nonprime房贷的问题爆发，银行贷款只能严格把关，能合格拿到房贷的人肯定大幅减少。05-06年nonprime loan占到全部房贷的40%，这个房贷标准一收紧，基本上这部分没有了，从需求方的数字上就要减少40%，这还不算经济不景气就业增长减少的因素。这样的情况下是供应和需求的完全不平衡。所以说这是50年来最大的房屋市场衰退，不是没有道理的。
牛派以为可以用5-6年的时间来化解，实际上问题的发作要猛烈的多，这只能怪前面几年虚假需求把泡泡吹得太大了。而且就是那些能够负担房贷的人，也不得不为房贷的支出而减少其他方面的开支，由于近年的负储蓄率，美国人的钱包已经被挤到了极端，也就是消费将不得不减少。以前房价上升，美国人还能够将房子当抵押多借钱花花，现在房价下跌，靠房子借钱也到头了。
可以看看Roubini教授的文章，可以解释为什么房屋市场的危机将蔓延到其他经济领域：
The Ten Faulty Consensus Views about Sub-prime and Soft-Landing…and the Ten Ugly Truths about the Coming Economic and Financial Hard Landing
英文原文在这儿
当然这些还是局部现象，美国不可能全部都只卖7000美元的房子。不过原来50万的房子只拍卖到13.5万，这说明那里的情况也是相当的恶化。
不知道那些建出来大量的房子没卖掉，变成ghost town的地方，拍卖起来是个什么样子？
最著名的例子就是在LA,因为LA是个摊大饼，供应无限，San Bernardino Valley在89年地产崩溃的时候，新区的房子都是半价以下拍卖，不少房子一直到1999年才升回到88年巅峰的价格，算上利息通胀，亏大了。
我们下一代就很幸福了，现在全球都是房产泡沫，从中国到美国，空置的房子一大片，照现在的人口趋势，到时候便宜房子随便挑，共产主义提早来到。
这样来看，加州房价大跌一把也合理。
我既没在美国呆过，也没贷款买过房子，对楼市缺乏感性认识。不过此人文章中一再强调1%的次级房贷市场规模不足以对经济构成冲击，逻辑上似乎有问题。毕竟，谁也没说subprime will cause recession,而是subprime may well trigger recession。美国经济各种结构性问题压制了多年，一个subprime足以引发了，不是么？
说来说去，还是这一段时间受教育印象太过深刻，以至于已经先入为主的成了看空一派了……
本帖一共被 1 帖 引用 (帖内工具实现)