內陸航空受重視

溫州火車追尾事故發生後首個交易日，基建設備及鐵路股遇上沽壓，航空股則逆市上升。展望未來，內地旅客選擇出行時，料會加大對內陸航空的選擇，航空與鐵路結合使用，料成為民眾選擇國內外遊的新趨勢。

內地鐵路段不斷提速，加上車票較飛機便宜，吸引不少民眾乘塔。但是，除了近期的京滬高鐵通車後，發生的多次小型事故之外，今次一部由揚州駛往溫州的列車撞向前面一架煞停了的列車，造成多人傷亡，更令人關注乘塔火車的安全問題。

股票市場即時反映了對鐵路相關股的悲觀情緒，南車電氣時代（3898）及中國南車（1766）股價分別挫14.1%及14%，有份承接鐵路興建工程的中國中鐵（390）和中鐵建（1186），股價亦分別跌了6%至7%。反而，航空股國航（763）升3.6%，南航（1055）和東航（670）分別升3.4%及4.8%。

里昂昨天的早晨報告指出，意外發生後，老百姓對公路和航空公司短期有需求，對投資者有心理影響，對鐵路基建及鐵路股則有負面影響。當然發生如此嚴重的交通意外後，民眾短期內會轉移乘塔飛機和使用公路到不同城市亦屬自然的事。

但中長期而言，鐵路仍是內地交通不可或缺的一部分，辛思維相信，民眾混合使用鐵路及內陸航空將成為主流出遊模式。這跟西歐的交通系統相似，旅客可藉兩種交通工具往還英國、法國、德國、意大利及西班牙等西歐主要城市。

目前，民眾對鐵路系統的安全有疑問，自然可能增加對公路運輸的需求。不過，公路股並非僅得鐵路因素所左右。例如，早前便有消息爆出雲南最大的公路營運商滇公路，爆出借錢只還息不還本的消息，反映出公路企業財政健康有好有壞。

瑞信除了就高鐵意外評論鐵路、鐵路設備、航空股外，亦有就意外對內房股的影響提供剖析。該行指出，上周六發生的意外將會減慢京滬高鐵沿線的地產發展，中國海外（688）、遠洋地產（3377）、世茂房地產（813）、雅居樂（3383）等發展商在天津、濟南及南京鐵路線附近買下一些地皮，減慢發展料對這些發展商有負面影響，該行維持對板塊負面的評級。

投資中國環渤海經濟中心 首選天津

中國改革開放30 年，實施了三大開發戰略，由上世紀80年代開發深圳，到90年代開發上海浦東，今天進入開發天津濱海新區的新世紀，先後掀起了珠三角、長三角、環渤海三次改革開放的經濟高速增長期。

2010 年，天津濱海新區正式成立，集金融、航天工業、生物科技、海港物流於一體，締造中國北部經濟特區的非凡成就。同年，濱海新區國內生產總值突破5000億元，比上年增長25%以上，位列全國之首。根據「十二五」規劃區內GDP多年保持22%以上增速，預計到2015 年，經濟總量將突破萬億元。

天津空港經濟區 發展潛力無限

天津空港經濟區位於濱海國際機場東北側，規劃面積45平方公里，是天津濱海新區距離市區最近的經濟功能區。空港經濟區乃中國北方航天製造中心，集合AIR BUS A320組裝線、中航直升機總部、中國新航天城（火箭制造）、中興通訊北方基地、西飛國際航空、寶鋼北方總部等、已進駐內外資企業超過600家，其中世界500強企業超過50家。預計2012 年，總外籍管理層及技術人員超過200,000人。隨着區域規劃的實施，一個產業聚集、功能複合、充滿活力的綜合經濟功能區和一座現代化新城將迅速崛起。

酒店住宅休閒集一身

位處天津市空港經濟區中心的天津皇冠國際公寓，項目建設用地3.5萬平方米，建築面積15萬平方米。包括皇冠國際酒店式住宅、皇冠假日酒店及甲級寫字樓科技大廈，是五星級商務建築集群；皇冠國際途步可達天津國際溫泉高爾夫俱樂部，距離AIR BUS 空客（天津）和天津濱海國際機場分別僅有5分鐘和10分鐘的車程；皇冠假日酒店是洲際集團旗下的五星級酒店品牌，擁有不同級數的客房共388套；單位配備全屋裝修及頂級傢俬電器，即買即收租。

優質設施提升投資價值

物業設施應有盡有，例如室內恆溫泳池、室內網球場、SPA、健身室、中餐廳、西餐廳、日式餐廳、酒吧、大堂吧。此外，物業特色吸引投資者的目光，包括可連租約出售，正對500萬呎人工湖，鄰近18洞高爾夫球場，大型購物商場，地鐵2號線延長線（預計2012年開通）。

天津皇冠國際公寓

地址 ：天津市空港經濟區中心大道與東四道交口

發商商 ：天津聖光置業有限公司

座數 ：4座

層數： 11層

單位總數：386戶

單位間隔：一房至四房

面積 ：605平方呎至2650平方呎

車位 ：609個

裝修標準：配全部精緻裝修、傢俱及名牌電器

物業售價：人民幣230餘萬起

入伙日期：現樓

深圳房控加碼 房價環比零增長 限價標準按戶型面積而定

國務院要求對上漲過快的二三線城市採限購令後不足一星期，深圳的樓市限價措施再度加碼，限價政策由「價格增幅不超過GDP漲幅」，升級到限制房價「月度環比零增長」，而且從單個項目限價細化到以戶型面積分別限價。

8月1日開始執行

內地媒體引述消息說，目前深圳市寶安、龍崗兩區的國土部已召集轄區各房企開會，通告深圳市新的房地產限價調控實施細則，新政策將於8月1日開始執行，成為執行上周二國務院常務會議精神的首個地方政府。

分析人士表示，深圳上半年的漲幅都多次領跑，在國家抑制房價上漲的過快的背景下，深圳對價格肯定會更加嚴格限制。國統局日前公布，深圳6月新建住宅價格按月升0.1%，按年升4.6%。3月底深圳出台今年新建住房價格控制目標，是漲幅低深圳本年度GDP增速。

深圳是次限價措施升級，除目標將價格月度環比零增長外，新政策還包括由以前的分行政區和具體項目限價，變為分產品類型面積限價，分為90方米以下、90-144方米、144方米以上三個面積分別限價。

深圳世聯地產市場研究部總監王海斌表示，現在政府是在有節奏的調節，之前制定的是全年房價漲幅目標，目前深圳不少取得預售證的樓盤價格都上升5%至10%，整體來看月度累積的話，年底必會超過年度GDP的漲幅。

他指出，深圳對於土地出讓金依耐程度低，對政策的執行力度必然大。預計三季度深圳市場一手供應將會增加，而在需求被抑制的前提下，價格上漲；其次就是人工成本，融資成本的增加，開發商下降的動力不是很大，導致限價是愈來愈嚴厲。

限價措施愈見嚴厲

深圳的新政同時對開發商在新開盤項目進行定價作出指引。一是以區域內最靠近自己的同質樓盤為基礎定價，各戶型的均價不能超過周邊樓盤的均價。

第二種情況是，如果區域內沒有可參考的新盤，則選擇附近具備同比性的區域來定價。

第三種情況是，如果沒有可參照的同類區域，就以區內二手房價格為標準定價。

此外，在對新開盤限定價格上，深圳新政策還對同一個項目，在不同銷售階段如何進行限價調控作出指引。同時，還制定月度均價控制原則，若各戶型價格在某個月出現下調，則下個月該戶型均價不得超過下調後的價格。

溫總出口術 內房股入冷宮

在政策打壓下，內房股過去一年來一直不被看好，難得近期各內房企公布的上半年銷售業績普遍出現不錯的增長，令多隻相關股份一度受追捧。可惜，美好時光難以持續。鑑於目前二三線城市樓市仍然熾熱，上周國務院就首次到提出，對樓價上漲過快的二三線城市要採取必要的限購措施。雖然目前仍處於「出口術」的階段，具體政策未出台，實際影響仍有待觀察，不過，在「風頭火勢」下，內房股短期內相信將再次被「打入冷宮」。

在目前已公布上半年銷售成績的內房企之中，以銷售面積計算，恒大地產（3333）成績最彪炳，上半年累計合約銷售面積611.7萬方米，按年上升83.2%；若以銷售額計算，則以中國海外發展（688）稱冠，上半年銷售額522.3億元，增長85.9%。

另一方面，國家統計局上周三（13日）公布的上半年國民經濟數據中，全國房地產開發投資仍達到26250億元（人民幣．下同），同比增長32.9%。配合內房近期公布的業績數據，令人懷疑調控根本沒有發揮作用，內地房產市場依然火爆。

其實，上半年房產投資額的增長，很大程度上來自保障房的建設。真正屬於商品房的銷售面積只是按年增長12.9%。6月份，全國房地產開發景氣指數報101.75，比5月份下跌1.45點。

一線城市銷情冷

事實上，在限購令影響下，內地樓市目前仍存在一線偏冷，二三線偏好的情況，例如北京市房地產交易管理網近日公布的數據顯示，自2月中北京執行嚴厲限購後，過去五個月，二手樓日均成交量僅277套，比去年同期下降60%。

國家統計局中國經濟景氣監測中心，發布的購房者信心指數亦發現，二季度一線城市購房者信心指數只有92.8，不及二三線城市的104.6，兩者信心差距由上季度的4.3點，擴大到11.8點。

在一線嚴厲執行限購令下，內房企只能轉投到二三線城市。恒大得到佳績，正正就是開拓二三線城市的結果，上半年集團新開售的33個樓盤中，沒有一個在一線城市。其中二線城市項目10個，佔比30.3%；三線城市項目23個，佔比69.7%。在限制較少的三線城市發展，難怪恒大上半年銷售金額同比增加一倍，達到423.2億元，完成全年700億元銷售目標的60.5%。

相反，仍堅持留守一線城市的越秀地產（123），受限購令影響，上半年只在廣州推出一個新盤，結果合同銷售面積及金額分別下降40.7%及43.7%，只完成全年90億元銷售目標的33.8%。

二三線城市現隱憂

當然，上半年已成過去，放眼下半年，內房股的前景又如何呢？6月CPI升幅高達6.4%，市場普遍預期，就算人行不再加息，仍有進一步調高存款準備金率的可能，銀根持續收緊毫無疑問。對於內房股來說，下半年仍需要繼續「撲水」。

縱使公司可以透過在香港發債解決資金困局，但仍令借貸成本上升，而把相關資金調回內地方面，亦面對不少阻礙。所以，內房要突破資金難題，最好的方法仍是做到貨如輪轉，加速資金回籠。

二三線市場，本來已為眾多內房企的希望。只可惜，在一線城市受限的情況下，不少投資者轉投二三線城市，推高當地樓價。參考國家統計局發表的6月份70大中城市樓價數據，發現上海及北京的新建商品住宅價格分別只上升2.7%及2.6%；不過，樓價同比升幅超過6%的二三線城市卻達到18個，其中新疆烏魯木齊及河北秦皇島的升幅，更分別達到9.3%及8.6%。

在沒有限制之下，二三線城市樓價不受控，對社會穩定不利。為避免再次激起民怨，總理溫家寶上周主持國務院常務會議，提出或對樓價上漲過快的二三線城市採取限購。

中央與開發商續「鬥法」

有關限購消息，令一眾內房股股價迅速調頭向下。不過，目前具體政策仍未出台，發展商要保住最後一道逃生門，便要懂得收斂，新盤開價不要太進取，令地方政府較容易向中央交代，則真正使出「辣招」的機會可望減少。

以目前的形勢所見，下半年內房與政府「鬥法」持續，在各方面政策仍趨於負面的情況下，縱使有好業績支持，對於內房股暫時還不宜沾手為妙。

旅遊地產成新藍海

淡馬錫拒絕再玩佳兆業（1638），劉鑾雄「加碼」恒大（3333），可見各方對內房前景抱有截然不同的見解。不過，可以肯定的是，在銀根收緊及「限購令」下，內房企業仍要謀求新出路。

在眾多房企之中，雅居樂（3383）便找到一個「新藍海」──旅遊地產。事實上，旅遊地產項目具有噱頭，而且可以將相關樓盤包裝成豪宅，有助提高毛利率。但旅遊地產發展空間雖大，卻已引來不少非議，難保不會成為下一個調控的目標。

雅居樂在嚴厲調控政策之下，仍能交出亮麗的銷售成績。今年首4個月的合約銷售金額約115億元（人民幣．下同），較去年同期增長53%，佔全年銷售目標的31%。其實，該公司去年整體業績不錯，銷售金額升61%，達323億元，純利增2.21倍，至64.2億元，未受調控影響。

在調控下仍能成功突圍的企業不多，恒大和雅居樂就是其中之一，不過兩者手法不同，後者主要是靠海南島的旅遊地產項目支持。

雅居樂去年單是海南清水灣一個樓盤的銷售額便有99億元，佔整體銷售的三成。

此外，海南去年樓價升幅達66%，冠絕全國，間接幫助雅居樂交出成績。該樓盤還未售完，今年繼續成為雅居樂的旗艦項目，撑起整體業績。

所謂旅遊地產，只不過是以主題公園、景區或休閒渡假村等項目作為包裝，順勢推出樓盤。由於這些樓盤景觀較佳，被認定具更高的投資價值，定價較一般商品房更進取，因此，雅居樂去年有能力在樓市一片淡風之中，提升毛利率8.6個百分點，至45.8%。

事實上，海南島以建成「國際生態旅遊島」為目標，海口政府更表明設有酒店的地產項目不受限購令規管，因而成為內房的「樂園」。

據了解，去年第三季在海南島沿岸正在興建的渡假村和酒店超過30個，發展商不乏投資者熟悉的富力（2777）、華潤置地（1109）及恒大。

除了海南島，上海有意在迪士尼樂園附近構建旅遊區，相關旅遊地產項目成為內房的新藍海。不過，旅遊地產項目忽然間吸引大量資金流入，已受到非議。例如海南不少別墅因為空置率過高，炒樓意味濃而受到質疑。

社會上有不少聲音已提出，要打擊這些變相發展地產的旅遊項目。所以，發展旅遊地產看似美好，但招來打壓的機會甚高，要扭轉內房劣勢仍有難度

「撲水」難需求限 內房腹背受敵

在銀根收緊下，內房股借貸困難，惟有四出「撲水」，除了發債之外，恒大（3333）近日就把一個已經開始施工的項目一半股權售予華人置業（127）。不過，困擾內房的並非只是資金問題，各地的限購令，以及保障性住房的興建，甚至有企業開始自建一些變相「福利分房」，都對未來內房需求帶來打擊。

新加坡淡馬錫基金近期就看淡內房，沽出佳兆業（1638）股權，內房發展未來前景如何，值得深思。

在政府加強打壓的陰霾下，內地房地產行業的成交量持續低迷，雖然5月初的小黃金周期間，部分地區的成交量出現輕微回升，但假期後已迅速冷卻下來。

以北京為例，5月2日至8日，當地樓市成交量只有3197套，環比前一周下降39%。

市場對於中央再次推出更嚴厲的調控措施仍存在恐懼。4月中，國務院派出8個督查組，遠赴16個省市督查房地產調控成效。消息指，督查組對調控措施的執行情況大致滿意，但仍堅持調控不能放鬆。按國家發改委要求，5月1日開始，各地開始對商品房執行「一房一價」明碼標價制度，並規定發展商只能降價不能漲價。

銀根再收緊

除了對樓價的限制之外，央行日前宣布上調大型銀行存款準備金率（RRR）0.5個百分點，於今天正式生效。RRR達到21%的歷史新高，不但令開發商難以借到足夠的資金發展，置業按揭貸款亦受到阻礙。

今年以來，包括恒大、佳兆業、碧桂園（2007）、越秀地產（123）、雅居樂（3383）在內的多家內房股，都加入海外發債行列。不過，在中央嚴控熱錢流入的情況下，房企在海外「撲水」後要回流內地，恐怕仍會面對不少阻力。

近日，恒大就宣布，向華置出售江蘇省啟東一幅地皮49%股權，作價5 億美元，相關地皮用作發展住宅及商業項目。雖然恒大表示引入華置是為了組成策略聯盟，但到工程首階段開始動工才買地，則未免令人覺得恒大是在嚴重「缺水」下，才作出如此決定。

雖然市場分析認為，恒大今次的售價符合市價，未至於出現賤賣資產的問題，只不過，若中央持續收緊銀根，內房股所面對的資金壓力仍難以紓緩，減價套現的情況將會陸續出現。

近期，內房減價潮已開始湧現。碧桂園在南京的鳳凰城項目，就推出多重優惠折扣，折後精裝修房售價每平方米6280元（人民幣．下同），比之前開發商報價8000元便宜了兩成半。龍湖地產（960）位於杭州的另一個新盤，亦推出最高94折的優惠。

發展商減價的行動，足以顯示中央及民眾期望房價下降的情況終於出現，問題是下降的幅度還有多大？價跌雖然可推動銷量上升，對內房盈利未必會帶來太大負面影響，但目前內地主要城普遍仍實行「限購令」，導致銷量上升空間受到限制。

「福利分房」重現

加上中央積極推動保障性住房的興建，部分機構為了照顧員工的住房需求，開始自行建房。

例如哈爾濱鐵路局擬建2.5萬套住房，並以低於市場價近一半的價格賣給鐵路局職工，回到20年前以工作單位為主體的「福利分房」時期。

內房發展的隱憂令投資者卻步，上星期亦有消息指出，新加坡淡馬錫控股將售出所持的8%佳兆業股權。雖然昨天在高盛及瑞信唱好恒大的情況下，多隻內房股的股價均出現反彈，但在政策前景不明朗之下，恐怕內房股上升空間有限，前景並不樂觀。

SOHO中國搞網上賣樓

說到SOHO中國（410），不得不談主席潘石屹。最近他宣布改革銷售模式，在網上賣樓，間接將一手建立的銷售團隊推倒，改由代理接手經互聯網銷售。事實上，此舉屬大膽創新的手法，有內地傳媒質疑是炒作多於實際，但其實是為進一步拓展市場而作出的改變。不過，轉到網上銷售能否刺激銷售成績，是投資者最關注的問題。

SOHO中國可謂典型「夫妻檔」，潘石屹主理公司管理、銷售、推廣以及政府關係，而張欣負責建築設計和資本市場。SOHO中國沿用的銷售機制由潘石屹一手建立，低廣告、高佣金建立的銷售團隊，令該集團去年實現238億元（人民幣．下同）銷售額，單項目年銷售額創中國地產商紀錄。不過，潘石屹認為將業務重心從北京轉移到上海後，銷售團隊無法適應，有改革的必要。

SOHO中國早前與新浪樂居、易居中國和世聯地產合作開拓網上銷售，讓客戶從零開始起跳拍賣，以發改委批准的房價封頂。同時又對內部銷售人員採取發牌制，取得該公司發出牌照的人可代理銷售其推出的項目。變相將內部的銷售員工裁減，將工作外判給代理。

透過此方法銷售，好處是利用互聯網將樓價資訊公開，毋須再讓銷售員去推銷，亦免卻與客戶討價還價，將定價權交到購買者手上。潘石屹認為這是未來房屋銷售的方向。

將銷售轉到互聯網上，是內地房地產商賣樓的創新手法，符合潘氏夫婦的形象。二人近年熱衷於微博，關注他們的「粉絲」多達六百萬人，潘石屹更不時在微博上大談樓市，內地傳媒經常轉載其博文，在政府嚴厲調控政策下，成為房地產的代表人物。而該公司在宣傳推廣上先行一步，今年廣告不再在報紙傳媒刊登，全數預算集中在互聯網上。

不過，過度集中在互聯網銷售，買樓者又接受與否？SOHO中國上月底小試牛刀，拍賣銀河SOHO和朝陽門SOHO兩個商舖，分別以1202萬元和720萬元成交。

潘石屹在微博上透露，銀河SOHO的商舖較政府批准價格低了300多萬元。2000萬元的銷售額不足以測試市場的接受情況，而SOHO中國下次拍賣將在本月15日，包括銷售和出租商舖、寫字樓及公寓，全面涵蓋其產品，結果更能反映市況。投資者應留意這次的拍賣結果，尤其成交價與政府批准價格的差距，來估計SOHO中國有否「賺盡」，從而判斷新銷售手法的盈利能力。

避開調控「風眼」 商廈專家行情看漲

中國今年對房地產市場調控，已是老生常談。不過，商業樓宇又有大宗交易出現，SOHO中國（410）斥資32億元收購位於上海的長寧商業中心，每平方米2.84萬元，離上次「出手」相隔僅半月。在政策傾斜下，商業物業開發商的熱度勝過住宅開發商。

SOHO中國近年轉趨積極，近兩年已合共斥資140億元人民幣，七度購買資產。公司的發言人表示，是次交易符合公司於京、滬兩地交通樞紐附近收購的策略，並計劃於七、八月份轉售。SOHO中國已不是第一次施展「摩貨式」的銷售策略，在2009年8月便曾以每平方米3.4萬元，購入上海東海廣場，並於3個月後以每平方米6萬元出售，當時頂層寫字樓單位更創下了每平方米10萬元的高價，成為一時佳話。

由於在商廈市場的形象獨特，券商近期關注到該公司的投資前景，瑞銀報告指出，SOHO今年的銷售合約可帶充足的現金流，確保收益率有穩定的增長，故把評級提升至「買入」，並調高目標價至7.21元。

SOHO專攻商業樓宇，在現時的政策環境之下吃香。基於對民生的考慮，中央今年對於樓價的升勢看得緊，早前便傳出要求樓價要與地方物價指數掛鈎，另外，「限價令」、提高承造按揭首期、限制外地人買樓等招數，亦都雷厲風行。

反而，商業樓宇則不在「風眼」中，限制寬鬆得多。兩者之所以有分別，是由於地方政府希望更多公司設立辦事處，促進所得稅收入。而且，寫字樓的價格的升降並不直接影響民生，故中央調控重點，並不在商廈、寫字樓及酒店一類商業物業。

恒隆地產進入收成期

北京及上海的商廈市場較為成熟，是投資的理想地點，兩市亦是SOHO中國的活躍活動範圍，至於南方城市廣州和深圳，情況則有點複雜。一方面，經濟發展令這兩個城市的寫字樓需求增加。另一方面，廣州及深圳未來一兩年的商廈供應卻多，以廣州為例，珠江新城的新型甲級寫字樓便會陸續應市，天河區又有太古匯商廈大型發展項目落成，承接力備受關注。

相對於SOHO中國把目光投向銷售市場，恒隆地產（101）則走另一條路。恒隆選擇「深耕」前期資本投入大、回籠期較長的商場物業，生意沒有受到調控影響。正所謂日子有功，經過十年的發展，恒隆的租金收入已大有長足發展，去年內地租賃業務的營業額達到45.5億元，有蓋過香港業務之勢。

在商業物業市場馳騁的，還有一支黑馬──人和商業（1387）。人和商業集中收購城市中的防空洞興建成地下商場，經營模式開創先河。現時，人和旗下部分商場已經落成，並完成銷售。

美銀認為人和未來一年將會有多個新項目落成，進一步支持銷售。而且，該股高派息比率可支持股價。不過，摩根士丹利則表示，人和商業截至2011年底，有高達11億元人民幣的應收貿易賬款項過了限期，令該行關注，人和管理層則相信買家的銀行最終會提供貸款。

可以預見的是，政策的傾斜為到商廈物業提供有利的經營環境，部分以住宅發展為主業的房產商，亦有意提高商廈物業的比例，不過這類發展商的資金需求大，如何調撥資本是件頭痛的事。

房價要降 總理今次說了算不算？

自從內地去年4月推出「新國十條」，及隨後多次加碼調控樓市後，內地樓價一直「企硬」，3月份全國70個大中城市新建住宅價格同比平均仍有5.4%的增長，只有兩個城市出現輕微下跌約0.5%。面對調控成效不彰，民怨未降，溫總「五．一」發表對樓價的看法，終於由「維穩」變為要求「房價降下來」。近日內地市場已不斷傳出有新一輪調控樓市措施，政策進一步收緊，內房股未來盈利隱憂處處。

過去一年，內地針對高樓價，中央及各地多次推出不同的調控措施，包括限購二三套房、限制外地人買樓、調高首期比例及房貸利率，甚至還在上海及重慶試行房產稅。新招不斷出現，不過，老百姓希望降房價的要求，始終未能實現。

調控一年未見成效

參考國家統計局4月中公布的數據，今年3月，樓價出現同比下降的城市只有海南三亞及四川南充，而降幅只有0.6%及0.5%。相反，樓價同比上升或持平的城市則有68個，其中，石家莊、烏魯木齊、蘭州等二三線城市的樓價更上升了逾1成。

對於內地樓價，溫總過往多次在公開場合表示，希望樓價健康發展，價格合理。只不過，到底怎樣的價格才算合理，官民的意見似乎仍有巨大差距。地方政府只望樓價不要升得太急，老百姓則希望樓價可以降下來。政府的措施與百姓期望有落差，難怪有網民指，「房價總理說了不算，總經理說了算」。

面對人民的不滿，溫總「五．一」假期期間巡視保障房建設時，首次提出，「要把一些地區過高的房價降下來、使房價回歸到合理水準」，並且關注中低收入家庭「住得起房子、租得起房子」。

事實上，早前內地多個城市訂出今年的樓價目標與GDP掛鉤，即大約有10%的升幅。其後，市場已經傳出，中央對此目標感到不滿。最接近中央權力核心的北京市，成為全國唯一提出要降樓價的城市。《新京報》引述鏈家地產市場研究部的統計指出，自3月底，北京公布「穩中有降」的調控目標後，新樓成交價格至今降了10%，成效顯現。

所以，今次溫總公開提出要樓價下降，是否亦代表了，各地有調整目標的需要？只不過，中央向來被指「政令不出中南海」，溫總的決心與地方政府依賴土地收入的利益相比，恐怕難被重視，要達到北京的調控效果，相信可能性不高。

不過，當然溫總如此高調地提出要求，地方總不能不回應，所以，各地把樓價上升目標稍為下調的機會甚大。而更重要的是，中央雖然不能嚴格控制地方賣地，但在銀行放貸方面卻仍可牢牢捉緊。令買樓人士沒有足夠資本參與炒作，開發商沒有足夠資本囤積居奇，要加快套利就不能不降價促銷。

新招或快出台

過去，內地今逢長假期，即會出現樓市升溫的情況。不過，早在今次假期前，市場就傳出，中央可能會再次推出調控樓市的措施。在不明朗因素下，內地傳媒報道指出，「五．一」樓市遇冷，部分開發商要開始降價促銷。

雖然3天假期結束，加息傳聞未出現，打擊樓市的新措施亦暫時未見；不過，短期內再出新招的可能性仍存在。傳聞中的新招就包括發改委正在研究在商品住房徵收暴利稅，以及銀監會可能進一步收緊房地產信託融資業務，並把個人首套房貸首期更可能提高至五成。

過去一年，內房企業與中央的鬥法中，成功以量升、價升的方法，令盈利保持增長。不過，今年內地緊縮政策進一步加強，調控措施亦有擴大的迹象。廣州、深圳、上海等一線城市，會否如北京般出現量跌、價跌的情況，將對內房股前景帶來重要影響

A psy-QE-logical problem

Posted by Tracy Alloway on Oct 01 15:14. 2 comments | Share

David Rosenberg thoughts on QE v2.0 are complex indeed.

Though he’s detailed at length why quantitative easing will flatten the yield curve —this time — he’s rather dubious of its actual effects on the US economy, at least in terms of mortgages.

In his Friday ‘Breakfast’ missive, the Gluskin Sheff analyst says:

New home sales are at their second lowest level on record despite record low 4% long-term mortgage rates. So if QE2 brings rates down to 3%, who cares? And with 11 million U.S. households upside down on their mortgages, refinancings have failed to boom and add cash flow to pocketbooks as was the case in 2003-04.

At the 2006 bubble peaks, households were engaging in mortgage equity cashouts to the tune of over $80 billion per quarter. That provided the thrust for the spending binge even as the jobs cycle lagged behind, similar to what we had seen in the past as the economy continued to adjust the vagaries of the post-dotcom bubble bust. Today, cash-out refinancing activity is running at one-tenth that good ol’ pace of five years ago. Indeed, attitudes towards “being in debt” have shifted so radically that nearly 1 in 4 households are now “cashing in” and paying down their mortgage debt. Nearly 1 in 3 upon refinancing are doing the most un-American thing of all; choosing to accelerate their paydown by reducing their amortization terms! This means maintaining or increasing the same monthly payments in a lower rate environment, which in turn helps explain why spending intentions on other things are going down. What can Dr. Bernanke do when the shift in attitudes is so profoundly psychological?

Right now debt is, quite simply, distasteful?

It’s certainly one way — together with tighter bank lending — to explain the breakdown in some of the historical associations between rates, refinancing and home sales in the below charts.

They — along with the extra commentary — come from RBC Capital Markets’ US economics team, led by Tom Porcelli.

Exhibit 1: We have been saying QE2 will have little impact on the economy aside from perhaps more refi activity. But an increase in refis and the commensurate savings would be a drop in the bucket. If the level of refi originations matched the all-time highs seen back in 2003 and mortgage rates fell another 50bps we would see an injection of $5bn to consumer pocketbooks in one year – or 0.05% of nominal PCE. Miniscule.

Exhibit 2: Furthermore, getting back to the record level of refi’s seems highly unlikely. Keep in mind that we’ve already seen rates fall 200bp from nearby highs (which is 2/3 the decline seen during the boom). The response to this decline in rates this time around has been muted thanks to, among other things, incredibly tight lending standards.

Exhibit 3: Low rates have done nothing to stimulate home sales and the relationship between mortgage rates and sales, since the bubble peaked in mid-2006 has decidedly broken down…

Exhibit 4: …those that say lower mortgage rates will motivate buyers clearly have not done their homework.

Over to you, Bernanke.

Related links:
Historic lows in mortgage rates fail to motivate buyers, owners – USA Today
Get ready, get set, deleverage! With one notable (US) exception - FT Alphaville
Quixotic QEasing - FT Alphaville

The soap opera of China's housing boom

By Geoff Dyer

Published: January 7 2010 02:00 | Last updated: January 7 2010 02:00

The most talked-about television programme in China at the moment is a soap opera called Snail House , which offers the viewer sex, corruption and political intrigue. Really, however, it is all about house prices.

One character becomes the mistress of a party official to help her buy a flat, while another young couple struggles unsuccessfully to raise the deposit for an apartment in a city that looks suspiciously like Shanghai. The series struck such a raw nerve that the censors took it off the air at the end of last year, although that has not stopped it becoming a big online hit.

The success of Snail House says something important about the popular mood in China today. While much of the rest of the world is in awe of China's rapid recovery, the programme tapped into the mounting wave of unease about the sky-rocketing cost of apartments in many cities. Urban Chinese complain loudly about becoming "mortgage slaves".

The house-price angst is fuelling fears among investors that China's super-charged lending boom last year is stoking a real estate bubble that will eventually burst and derail the economy.

Indeed, there is a whiff of Dubai about the Chinese property market at the moment. In Tianjin, a city two hours from Beijing, a developer is starting work on a vast project of luxury villas, built in clusters named after continents, which form the shape of a world map. If that does not sound familiar, nothing screams Dubai more than the 7-star hotel and indoor ski slope that are also part of the plans. (In defence of the skiing, it was -11°C in Tianjin yesterday, compared to Dubai's 23°C.)

There are plenty of alarming statistics to back up the anecdotes. According to Knight Frank, average prices for new homes in the year to November rose by 68 per cent in Shanghai, 66 per cent in Beijing and 51 per cent in Shenzhen. The China Daily noted this week that in terms of house prices as a proportion of incomes, China is now the most expensive place in the world.

That said, anyone predicting problems in Chinese property needs to consider some pretty strong fundamentals underpinning the market. In recent years, incomes have mostly risen faster than house prices, and homeowner debt levels are low.

Then there is urbanisation. According to the State Council, as many as 400m people could move to cities over the next two decades - which works out, by the way, at 322 Dubais. It is hard to lose too much sleep, say the optimists, about a collapse in a property market facing that sort of potential demand.

But there is one factor that makes even property bulls pause for thought: the acres of empty flats in high-end compounds in many Chinese cities. Patrick Chovanec, an economist at Tsinghua University in Beijing, who bought an apartment in a new complex that was sold out but mostly empty, calls them "ghost-condos". In the Pudong area of Shanghai in the evening there are whole blocks with almost no lights on. By one estimate, 587m sq m of apartments have been left empty by owners.

The reason, says Mr Chovanec, is that Chinese treat flats as "stores of value, like gold". With few other investment options in a closed economy, they put a big chunk of savings into real estate. And it is this behaviour that is driving up house prices in plenty of cities and, if unchecked, could create a nasty bubble.

China needs not only to rebalance its economy, it also needs to rebalance its housing market, changing the incentives so that the investment goes into much-needed low-income housing and not to high-end flats that are unused. But this is where the politics get difficult.

The obvious solution is a property tax. Chinese pay a one-off transaction tax when they buy a house but nothing afterwards. With an annual tax, it would make less sense to keep empty properties. The juicy margins that developers get from top-end flats would be squeezed, forcing them to be build other types of property.

Indeed, plenty of Chinese economists see a property tax as a silver bullet to alter some of worst aspects of China's increasingly unequal economy. It could create a sustainable source of income for local governments, which often rely on the one-off revenues from selling land they have taken from farmers. And it could provide a way to finance reforms of the household registration system, which denies health and education services to migrant workers in cities.

But while China has talked about a property tax for years, it has never been implemented. Some of the most powerful vested interests in China today are the tight webs of property developers and local government officials who both benefit from the current opaque set-up; Snail House had a lot to say about the corruption in some of these connections. A property tax would also shift the relationship between governed and government in a way that Beijing might find alarming - the only thing more middle-class than owning property is complaining about how local authorities spend tax revenues.

There is also the problem of implementation. A property tax might help to avoid a bigger bubble down the road, but if badly handled it could cause the market to slump. Helped by buoyant housing, Beijing has engineered a rapid economic recovery, but to sustain the rebound this year it faces some delicate political choices.

The writer is the FT's China bureau chief

Wen, will property cool?

Posted by Alex Stevenson on Mar 08 13:14. 1 comment.

Amid the flurry of media attempts to parse the assurances of elusive Chinese mandarins, one announcement on Monday from the housing ministry looked like it might actually tell us something about the direction of Chinese economic reform. More…

Amid the flurry of media attempts to parse the assurances of elusive Chinese mandarins, one announcement on Monday from the housing ministry looked like it might actually tell us something about the direction of Chinese economic reform.

Fat chance.

During his State of the Union-esque speech on Friday, China’s premier Wen Jiabao, among other promises, pledged to clear up land issues and stop “prices from rising too fast.”

The concern, of course, is that China’s stimulus-backed mega-lending boom is pumping hot air into the ever-growing property bubble. In January alone, property prices climbed at the fastest rate in 21 months.

So Monday’s housing ministry report – claiming that measures had been successful in reigning property speculation – should have calmed fears.

Housing minister Jiang Weixin pledged to keep prices stable and announced a series of measures to cool extreme jumps in house prices. Jiang also promised to expand social housing construction and maintain a supply for regular commercial housing.

As the FT reported, in China apartments are viewed as assets where few opportunities for other investments exist. Growing rhetoric on housing markets points to just one real solution: a property tax.

But a note today from London-based North Square Blue Oak points out that an anticipated property tax pilot was not a part of the government working report, thus lowering prospects for any serious housing growth dampening:

In addition, the MOF budget report only mentioned it will ‘improve’ the consumption tax and property tax system this year. Although the property tax is a contentious issue, other measures to tighten the property market are expected in due course.

Meanwhile, it looks like it’s back to the status quo of ever-increasing housing prices. Shanghai property stocks were up 1.8 per cent, the most in one week. One analyst at RBS in Hong Kong, David Ng, was quoted in Business Week saying this:

“The thing to watch out for was whether there are new negatives, but it’s the same old stuff that’s been said over the last three months: the government wants to curb excessive price gains, support first-time buyers and attack speculators,” he said.

This brings us back to the starting point, leaving careful China watchers confused as to whether anything has really changed.

Related links:
The soap opera of China’s housing boom – FT
China: more revaluation rumbles – FT Alphaville
China’s Wen plans realty curbs to cool home prices – MarketWatch

US Housing Bubble v2.0

Posted by Tracy Alloway on Feb 01 10:02. 14 comments.

Here’s one thing that the Sigtarp’s quarterly report to Congress, released on Saturday, made very clear; propping up house prices is now an explicit goal of the US government.

So explicit in fact, that the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program has knocked up this little chart to show how various policy programmes (Hamp, More…

Here’s one thing that the Sigtarp’s quarterly report to Congress, released on Saturday, made very clear: propping up house prices is now an explicit goal of the US government.

So explicit in fact, that the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program has knocked up this little chart to show how various policy programmes (Hamp, MHA, etc.) lead to higher houseprices:

See? It’s like crystal.

As the report states:

Supporting home prices is an explicit policy goal of the Government. As the White House stated in the announcement of HAMP for example, “President Obama’s programs to prevent foreclosures will help bolster home prices.”

In general, housing obeys the laws of supply and demand: higher demand leads to higher prices. Because increasing access to credit increases the pool of potential home buyers, increasing access to credit boosts home prices. The Federal Reserve can thus boost home prices by either lowering general interest rates or purchasing mortgages and MBS. Both actions, which the Federal Reserve is pursuing, have the effect of lowering interest rates, which increases demand by permitting borrowers to afford a higher home price on a given income.

Similarly, the Administration is boosting home prices by encouraging bank lending (such as through TARP) and by instituting purchase incentives such as the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit. All of these actions increase the demand for homes, which increases home prices. In addition to direct Government activity, home prices can be lifted by general expectations among homebuyers of future price increases.

Questions related to moral hazard on a postcard to the below please.

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

The Federal Reserve
20th Street and Constitution Ave.
Washington, DC 20551

The Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220

Related links:
Serial bubbles – FT Alphaville
Hamp, what is it good for? – FT Alphaville
Interest rates and the housing bubble: less maestro, redux – FT Alphaville
Goldman says US gov’t boosted home prices by 5% – FT Alphaville

Hoenig the hawk

Posted by Paul Murphy on Jan 27 21:59. 1 comment.

As expected, the Fed’s zero rate strategy holds for now, but for the first time in a year there was a dissenting voter: Thomas M. Hoenig…

Statement (our emphasis):
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in December suggests that economic activity has continued to strengthen and that the deterioration in the labor market is abating. More…

As expected, the Fed’s zero rate strategy holds for now, but for the first time in a year there was a dissenting voter: Thomas M. Hoenig…

Statement (our emphasis):

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in December suggests that economic activity has continued to strengthen and that the deterioration in the labor market is abating. Household spending is expanding at a moderate rate but remains constrained by a weak labor market, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Business spending on equipment and software appears to be picking up, but investment in structures is still contracting and employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Firms have brought inventory stocks into better alignment with sales. While bank lending continues to contract, financial market conditions remain supportive of economic growth. Although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be moderate for a time, the Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability.

With substantial resource slack continuing to restrain cost pressures and with longer-term inflation expectations stable, inflation is likely to be subdued for some time.

The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period. To provide support to mortgage lending and housing markets and to improve overall conditions in private credit markets, the Federal Reserve is in the process of purchasing $1.25 trillion of agency mortgage-backed securities and about $175 billion of agency debt. In order to promote a smooth transition in markets, the Committee is gradually slowing the pace of these purchases, and it anticipates that these transactions will be executed by the end of the first quarter. The Committee will continue to evaluate its purchases of securities in light of the evolving economic outlook and conditions in financial markets.

In light of improved functioning of financial markets, the Federal Reserve will be closing the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, and the Term Securities Lending Facility on February 1, as previously announced. In addition, the temporary liquidity swap arrangements between the Federal Reserve and other central banks will expire on February 1. The Federal Reserve is in the process of winding down its Term Auction Facility: $50 billion in 28-day credit will be offered on February 8 and $25 billion in 28-day credit wil be offered at the final auction on March 8. The anticipated expiration dates for the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility remain set at June 30 for loans backed by new-issue commercial mortgage-backed securities and March 31 for loans backed by all other types of collateral. The Federal Reserve is prepared to modify these plans if necessary to support financial stability and economic growth.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; James Bullard; Elizabeth A. Duke; Donald L. Kohn; Sandra Pianalto; Eric S. Rosengren; Daniel K. Tarullo; and Kevin M. Warsh. Voting against the policy action was Thomas M. Hoenig, who believed that economic and financial conditions had changed sufficiently that the expectation of exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period was no longer warranted.

Related links:
Exit strategy – FT Alphaville
Federal Reserve warned on interest rates – FT

Is negative convexity the new Bernanke conundrum?

Posted by Tracy Alloway on Jan 28 12:56. 5 comments.

Negative convexity is something which has been mentioned on this blog before.

It sounds dramatic, not to mention nerdy, but bear with us because it is something which is actually quite interesting — and something which is, More…

Negative convexity is something which has been mentioned on this blog before.

It sounds dramatic, not to mention nerdy, but bear with us because it is something which is actually quite interesting — and something which is, once again, rearing its head in connection with the Federal Reserve.

From Bruce Krasting:

The Atlanta Fed put out a report on the status of the Fed’s purchases of MBS. The report confirms that 91% of the anticipated $1.25 Trillion of paper has been bought. This leaves about $110b of buying power left for the Fed. There is only nine weeks left until the anticipated time that this program will end. This implies an average of only $10b of intervention per week. The most recent purchase was for $16B. Look for that weekly number to fall pretty quickly from now on.

Now look at the following graph. If you print this out and check with a ruler (I did) you will see that the lowest point on the brown shaded area is 1,200 and the upper band is at 2,400 (1,200 total). The legend states that brown are both Agency Bonds and MBS. From the report you get those numbers to be Bonds = $175B and MBS = $1.14T, for a total of $1.31T. Significantly higher ($110b) than you might have expected looking at the graph. There is a simple reason for the apparent discrepancy. It is called Negative Convexity.

Unlike most bonds, which have positive convexity, mortgage bonds are said to have negative convexity since since they tend not to rise in price as much as a normal bond as interest rates decrease.

That’s because in low-interest rate environments — like now — homeowners have a tendency to prepay their mortgages; refinancing them to take advantage of the lower rates. When this happens MBS investors get a return on principal faster than they expected and they’re left to reinvest in a lower yield environment.

The pre-payment rate for the Fed’s MBS portfolio is an unknown, but Krasting has asked a mortgage-rate type to give an estimate of how quickly he thinks the Fed’s portfolio might have been been shrinking due to those prepayments. Here’s what he got back:

From this professional you get a pretty good estimate of the prepay as being 10%. That would come to $110B. This estimate goes a long way toward explaining the discrepancy between what the Fed has purchased and what the principal balance is that they currently own.

Some thoughts on this phenomenon:

-My friend suggests that going forward the prepay could be as much as 20% PA. Well that would mean something in the order of $250B over the next year. That would, by itself, be a very deflationary force. It is too big a number. It would be happening at a very bad time. Pure economics would suggest that the supply of available mortgage credit would fall sharply as a result. The Fed does not need to do repos to suck up excess reserves. They just have to collect the prepays that are coming.

-If you buy into this you have to assume that the amount of prepays in the current month will be approximately $18b (1.1T * 20% / 12). The Fed is buying $16b a week or $64b a month. So in January the net is only $46B. Follow this dotted line and you will see that by early March the purchases net of prepays will be a negative number. This will be the starting date of the true reversal of the QE process. March is much sooner than people are thinking it will occur.

-The Fed will make Net purchases totaling $1.25T. But they will never have a portfolio of that amount. It has to be less. By the numbers they will end March with approximately 1.14 – 1.16 Trillion. And the portfolio will be shrinking by $20B per month thereafter.

This is a scary thought. This could well be the basis of a back door, Sneaky Pete “QE 2.0 Lite”. If the intention were to purchase and maintain a portfolio size of $1.25T they would have to make additional purchases of $100B and continue the buys on a monthly basis of approximately $20B. This would not be a change of policy (ahem). It would be refining and maintaining the existing policy.

We’re not sure about some of those assertions. But we do think the prepayment issue throws up another problem for the Fed — one very much closer to home.

If prepayments speed up in low-interest rate scenarios, the exact opposite happens in higher-interest rate or inflationary ones. Having snapped up some $1,250bn worth of MBS, the Fed could be left to finance a significant proportion of those mortgages at interest rates higher than their yield.

In other words, if interest rates were to increase, or inflation were to pick up, the Fed would still be financing those mortgages at a cost which exceeds the yield the central bank is earning on them.

Deutsche Bank analysts put it succinctly last year:

In other words, the Fed effectively has an asset-liability mismatch. This mismatch might diminish the Fed’s ability to control inflation in the long run, as it might have to keep creating money, even if the right policy would otherwise have been to shrink the money supply.

Related links:
Hoenig the hawk – FT Alphaville
Negative convexity at the Fed – FT Alphaville
The Fed’s asset-liability mismatch – FT Alphaville

Delinquent CMBS, the `C’ stands for climbing

Posted by Tracy Alloway on Jan 04 15:43. Comment.

Behold, what looks to be the biggest monthly increase in delinquent CMBS in 2009 (so far).

Realpoint has released its CMBS delinquency report for November 2009.

With the exception of June 2009, More…

Behold, what looks to be the biggest monthly increase in delinquent CMBS in 2009 (so far).

Realpoint has released its CMBS delinquency report for November 2009.

With the exception of June 2009, when the temporary late payment status of some General Growth Property loans helped push total delinquent CMBS to $28.85bn, it looks like November saw the biggest monthly gain over the last year — rising $5.38bn to $37.93bn.

That’s a delinquency rate of 4.706 per cent, up from the 4.013 per cent posted in October.

About $3.5bn of that increase was caused by a single loan — the Extended Stay Hotel LLC loan from the WBC07ESH transaction. Still, the ratings agency expects that loan to continue to be delinquent “in the near-term” and thinks the overall delinquency rate will rise to between 5 and 6 per cent in Q1 2010.

The good news though: Realpoint thinks the various government programmes put in place to bolster the commercial real estate sector (the Talf, CRE loan workouts, etc.) might yet make an impact:

On the other hand, as three new issue deals have closed in the past two months and more new issuance is expected to come to market in 2010, some of the delinquency growth we have experienced month-over-month in 2009 may yet be offset somewhat by any new issuance’s speed to market in 2010. In addition, liquidations of severely distressed defaulted loans have picked up speed in the latter half of 2009, while modifications and forbearance at the loan level continue to be discussed between borrowers and special servicers that may also result in a delinquency “leveling-off” period.

Related links:
US CMBS delinquencies hit 4.5 per cent, Moody’s says – FT Alphaville
All roads lead to retranching in CRE crunch – FT Alphaville

Hamp, what is it good for?

Posted by Tracy Alloway on Dec 22 11:26.

In addition to the difficulty of converting temporary mortgage modifications into permanent ones, one of the big question marks hanging over the US Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Plan is the redefault rate. That is, the percentage of homeowners who redefault on their modified mortgage.
FT Alphaville has mentioned before that in cases of severe negative equity, it might make more sense for a homeowner to make a couple of Hamp-reduced interest payments on his or her mortgage and then walk away. The US Treasury hasn’t given an official default rate for the programme yet, but figures like 25 per cent and 50 per cent have been bandied about.
In their US Securitised Product Outlook for 2010, however, Barclays Capital take a slightly more negative outlook on the redefault rate. It might be better than previous mortgage modification plans — but it’s still likely to be pretty dismal, they say:
Re-default performance for loans modified in Q3 08 has been dismal, with more than 60% relapsing into deep delinquency already. However, HAMP has been more aggressive than earlier mods – reducing borrower payments by 30-40%, compared with earlier modification efforts that typically reduced monthly payments by 15-20%. As Figure 6 shows, higher payment reductions reduce re-default rates, but only by 5-10% for that magnitude of payment change . . .
On the flip side, HAMP does not address the issue of negative equity, which is one of the primary drivers behind default . . . Taking these factors into account, we expect overall HAMP re-default rates to show not more than a 10-20% improvement over the default rates seen in past mods.
With the redefault issue then, plus the conversion rate for permanent modifications and various servicer problems, BarCap thinks we’ll see some sort of revision or significant tweaking of the programme.
Possible changes could include further streamlining the documentation requirement for Hamp applications, creating a lower debt-to-income target or second-lien programme, or, perhaps most significantly, starting principal forgiveness instead of just forbearance.
Here’s a summary:
Finally, watch out for new policy changes from Washington on the mortgage front. If HAMP does not work well (as we expect), and foreclosures keep rising, Congress might revisit some of the more radical suggestions from earlier this year, such as cram-downs, forced debt forgiveness, etc. On the agency MBS side, one tail risk is the prospect of an off-market, low mortgage rate provided by the government. MBS investors fearful of this shift compressed the coupon stack sharply in Q1 09 – if such an off-market rate is actually offered by the government, it could greatly hurt premiums and, thus, all agency MBS valuations
. . .
A greater share of debt forbearance mods would lead to upfront losses on the pool, in turn leading to higher initial [constand default rates]. However, since debt forgiveness mods typically perform better than comparable rate reduction mods, re-default rates would be lower (Figure 27). Higher losses upfront on the forgiven amount would imply that subordinates would be written down faster on subprime deals, causing crossover to occur sooner. This would benefit the second and third cash flows at the expense of the first cash flow bond as the principal waterfall switches from sequential to pro rata.
Given all of the above, readers might well be scratching their heads as to what the Hamp is actually good for. And on that point Barclays is very clear — shadows and cans:
To be clear, the modification program (HAMP) is not a silver bullet. As Figure 6 shows, historical re-default rates for all types of modifications are high – HAMP should be better, but not hugely so. But the process of modification buys time. It increases the number of months between the borrower turning delinquent and the home hitting the market. This is shown in the REO (real estate owned) line in Figure 5; even as foreclosures keep rising, the REO bucket has gone down. So kicking the foreclosure ‘can’ down the road has helped prices stabilize.
Intuitively, if there are millions of foreclosures to still work through the system, it is better to spread them over a few years than have them hit the market in six months – this prevents prices from over-correcting to the downside. And with the Administration focused on modifications, we expect long delinquency-to-liquidation timelines to help home prices.
As a result, our forecast calls for prices to drop 8% from current levels, before stabilizing in Q2 2010. The macro impact of this decline should be muted. After all, a house worth $100 is now worth $67 (prices have fallen around 33% from peak in Case Schiller). A further 8% decline from current levels is simply another $5.3. As every month passes without a sharp increase in the REO bucket or a sharp drop in home prices, the tail risk posed by housing declines ever so further.

`Real estate owned’ means the properties owned by banks and mortgage companies — the stuff we call `shadow housing inventory‘ since it’s not included in official measures of unsold housing inventory.

Related links:
FT Alphaville coverage of HampWill the groundhog see a shadow housing inventory? – WSJ Developments
Mitchell a key vote in cramdown battle – Phoenix Business Journal
OCC and OTS: Foreclosures Increase, but HAMP Mods Performing Better – HousingStorm.com

US ’shadow housing inventory’ at 1.7m, CoreLogic says

Posted by Stacy-Marie Ishmael on Dec 17 20:39.

The “shadow” housing inventory in the US rose to 1.7m units in the third quarter of 2009, according to estimates by FirstAmerican CoreLogic, a provider of real estate data.

The data provider defines this pending housing supply, which stood at 1.1m in the same period a year ago, as:

real estate owned (REO) by banks and mortgage companies, as a result of foreclosures and other actions, such as deeds in lieu, as well as real estate that is at least 90 days delinquent.

This shadow inventory is not traditionally included in official measures of unsold inventory, which, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, makes the exact level of supply in the US housing market “impossible to pin down”.

According to the WSJ, recent estimates by BarCap suggested banks and mortgage investors had 639,000 foreclosed homes for sale across the US:

That’s equivalent to more than 10% of expected U.S. home sales this year. The bank-owned homes are largely concentrated in Florida, California, Arizona and Nevada.

The estimate by FirstAmerican CoreLogic is even more aggressive (emphasis ours):

At the current sales rate, the pending supply is 3.3 months, up from 2.4 months a year ago. The months’ supply measures how quickly the inventory will run off given the current sales rate.

• The visible supply of unsold inventory was 3.8 million units in September 2009, down from 4.7 million a year earlier. The visible inventory measures the unsold inventory of new and existing homes that are currently on the market. The visible months’ supply fell to 7.8 months in September 2009, down from 10.1 months a year earlier.
• The total unsold inventory (which combines the visible and pending supply) was 5.5 million units in September 2009, down from 5.7 million a year ago. The total months’ supply was 11.1 months, down from 12.7 a year earlier. This indicates that while the visible months’ supply has decreased and is beginning to approach more normal levels, adding in the pending supply reveals there is still quite a bit of inventory that will impact the housing market for the next few years, especially in the context of the current increase in home sales, which is in part due to artificially low interest rates and the homebuyer tax credit.

FirstAmerican CoreLogic chart of Visible vs Pending Months' Supply

FirstAmerican CoreLogic chart of Months' Supply Pending Inventory Detail

Related links:
Shadow inventory threatens U.S. housing recovery – Globe and Mail
Housing Won’t Collapse in 2010, says Radar Logic – HousingWire
Goldman says US gov’t boosted home prices by 5% – FT Alphaville
Very Hamp-ered – FT Alphaville