Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
America: Now $8-to-$14 Trillion Poorer
The Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds report for first quarter 2009 [pdf] puts total U.S. household net worth at $50.4 trillion, down $1.3 trillion dollars from fourth quarter 2008. This is the seventh straight quarterly decline, CNN notes. Green shoot version: Bloomberg says the rate of decline has slowed since the fourth quarter of aught-eight. More coverage.
Just how much has household net worth dropped since the peak? Calculated Risk calls it $14 trillion, as does CNN, which refers to an "all-time high of $64.4 trillion in the second quarter of 2007."
Those figures don't seem to agree with the historic data in previous FOF reports, which indicate that the peak came in the third quarter of 2007.
First quarter 2009 [pdf]:
Household net worth--the difference between the value of assets and liabilities--was an estimated $50.4 trillion at the end of the first quarter of 2009, $1.3 trillion dollars less than at the end of 2008.
Third quarter 2007 [pdf]:
Household net worth--the difference between the value of assets and liabilities--was at an estimated level of $58.6 trillion at the end of the third quarter of 2007, $0.6 trillion dollars more than in the preceding quarter.
If I'm missing/misreading/misinterpreting something, please deliver swift kicks in the comments. Comparing these two, it looks like household net worth declined only $8.2 trillion since the 2007 peak. But what's $5.8 trillion in post-capitalist America?
Flow of Funds figures don't get a lot of attention
because they arrive three months after the fact, but they are an
interesting tool for guessing the size of the bubble and the depth
of the bust. The American people are now worth about what they were
worth in 2004, but the value keeps dropping. And there are reasons
to think the value can go a lot lower: In many regions, nobody's
buying houses at all, so how do you really value real estate
holdings there? Even without that wild card, the sum of "real
estate holdings" is subject to revision: The equity share of total
real estate owned now stands at only 41.4 percent, down from 42.9
percent in the fourth quarter. One in five Americans now owe more
than their house is worth.
So it comes down to when you think valuations of everything -- real estate, stocks, bonds, savings -- started going out of whack. The end of the 2001 recession? The beginning of the century? The beginning of the dot-com bubble? The Reagan era? I'm working on a thesis that it all started going south for the U.S. economy when Ohio became a state; it's just taken a while for the effects to become clear.
In any event, the FOF's claim to putting a price on the entire U.S. economy (which itself should be viewed with skepticism) makes the quarterly report valuable for handicapping. You may believe the price of all that stuff out there is at or near its low point; or you may think the country is moving back to a state of nature. Either way, it's worth a look.
Fake it till you make it|6.11.09 @ 7:39PM|#
Fuck 'em.I'm up.
Yeah, so's my dick, but it don't mean diddly
SIV|6.11.09 @ 9:45PM|#
Somebody else is poorer too
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=15456&size=A
http://www.lexpansion.com/economie/actualite-economique/le-mystere-des-134-milliards-de-dollars-saisis-a-la-frontiere-suisso-italienne_183110.html
|6.11.09 @ 10:31PM|#
This notion of valuing net worth in terms of stock prices is
nonsensical. If everyone sold their shares simultaneously, the
price would of course plummet. It's not a very good measure of
anything.
If the market value of your house falls, it's only a net loss to
you if you were planning to sell it in the immediate future. The
house itself has not changed.
Syd|6.12.09 @ 3:14AM|#
The difference is government bureaucrats covering their asses. In this case, it doesn't make much difference anyway. Both figures are terrible.
|6.12.09 @ 5:53AM|#
@Meade:
Yes and no, but it depends on the real worth. Would you buy a house
even in the future for a high price, if you know you would inherit
a debt of several houses? No? Well, guess that is the poblem and
not that the price is at the moment small =)
Conspiracy Nut|6.12.09 @ 8:09AM|#
I'm working on a thesis that it all started going south for
the U.S. economy when Ohio became a state; it's just taken a while
for the effects to become clear.
Fool. Everyone knows Ohio was never really admitted to the union,
gold fringe on the flag means we're under martial law, the Air
Force used a particle beam weapon to destroy Paul Wellsone's plane
and Elvis was in WTC #7.
robc|6.12.09 @ 8:17AM|#
The equity share of total real estate owned now stands at
only 41.4 percent
Woo hoo! Im approximately 9 percent above average!!!
Xeones|6.12.09 @ 8:31AM|#
Woo hoo! Im approximately 9 percent above
average!!!
What about the 50% of people who are below average, huh? Won't you
think of them, you inconsiderate fatcat?
|6.12.09 @ 8:58AM|#
Sorry about your commenters. You write a serious piece and they
just piss and moan. Calculated Risk and CNN really screwed
up.
In real terms the "official" decline is almost 20%. My guess is
that the correct decline is greater. Unlikely that FofFs has
attempted to measure the declines in the values of mortgage related
instruments.
Xeones|6.12.09 @ 9:09AM|#
You write a serious piece and they just piss and
moan.
Dude, it's the INTERNET.
phalkor|6.12.09 @ 9:13AM|#
I personally feel that California makes a better scapegoat than Ohio these days. It used to be New Jersey, but America is bleeding out too much to worry about her smelly armpit.
|6.12.09 @ 9:20AM|#
Unlikely that FofFs has attempted to measure the declines in
the values of mortgage related instruments.
Very true. There's something like a quadrillion dollars of OTC
derivatives sloshing around the global financial system. Nobody
knows what they are worth, but . . . .
Kwillcox|6.12.09 @ 9:22AM|#
I think things began to go south with increase in home equity loans, massive increase (up to half a quadrillion dollars) of derivatives, and manipulation of oil prices, all in G. Bush's term. I like the guy, but he was asleep at the switch.
|6.12.09 @ 9:27AM|#
Obviously, this mess is an adjustment for monetarily leveraging
everything to the teeth ever since roughly FDR. The question is how
does such leveraging end, how, why, and to what degree.
You can't eat imaginary wealth and live in stacks of notes forever.
After all these years the Fed is scared shitless as well it should
be. Apparently money doesn't grow on trees.
|6.12.09 @ 9:40AM|#
Apparently money doesn't grow on trees.
Of course not, silly. You cut the trees down and grind them up into
pulp first.
|6.12.09 @ 9:47AM|#
from the article: "Bloomberg says the rate of decline has slowed
since the fourth quarter of aught-eight. "
This tells me that President Obama's plan has us moving in the
right direction. Everybody needs to calm down a bit and give it a
little time. The social stench of screwing the fat broad doesn't
just fall off once your sober ya know. (domo, I'm lookin at
you)
T|6.12.09 @ 9:49AM|#
Dude, it's the INTERNET.
Apparently, it's serious business.
On a more serious and topical note, they're still making loans of
up to 105% of the home value, because I was offered one in the
course of getting my refi. So some people still haven't
learned.
Kris|6.12.09 @ 9:57AM|#
What happens when a quadrillion dollars of imaginary wealth goes back to where it came from? Why the Fed just prints up a quadrillion new greenbacks to compensate. Right? Right? They can do it, right?
Jennifer|6.12.09 @ 9:58AM|#
A lot of that money never really existed anyway. How much money "vanished" from the Dutch economy when the tulip bubble burst and a single bulb could no longer be traded for the cost of a mansion?
Celebrim|6.12.09 @ 10:12AM|#
There are plenty of people to blame and to cast blame, but not
alot of people to take responcibility.
If you really want to get back to the root of it, it's LBJ's 'Great
Society'. Everything has been going south since then. Nixon made
things worse with his love of price controls. Carter made things
worse in just about every way. Reagan made things worse by not
capping the budget debt. Bush Sr. made things worse by returning to
the 'big government' outlook. Clinton made things worse by starting
the whole cycle of massive liquidity bubbles while talking smack
about 'fixing the economy forever'. Bush Jr. just followed in the
footsteps of all the former ones, and Obama is just Bush Jr. only
bigger, blacker, and faster.
T|6.12.09 @ 10:13AM|#
I'm a millionaire.
You'll never get anywhere thinking small like that. Why aren't you
a billionaire?
|6.12.09 @ 12:24PM|#
A lot of that money never really existed anyway.
It was just as real as any other currency circulating in the global
economy.
How much money "vanished" from the Dutch economy when the tulip
bubble burst and a single bulb could no longer be traded for the
cost of a mansion?
A lot of people went for-real broke, I know that.
Jennifer|6.12.09 @ 12:48PM|#
It was just as real as any other currency circulating in the
global economy.
Then avoid semantics by replacing "money" with a term like "value."
Most housing bubble values were unrealistic and unsustainable. Look
at those California neighborhoods (for example) where the bubble
reached its frothiest levels -- if you have a town where most
households make $50K per year, and a $100K salary puts a household
in the local elite, a crackerbox three-bedroom ranch house on a
quarter-acre of land is not "worth" three quarters of a million
dollars, because such a local economy simply can't sustain such
outrageously high home prices.
The only reason the houses sold for such prices is because a debt
bubble propped up the prices. But it turns out that, while a $50K
or even $100K family might "qualify" for a $750K mortgage from
stupid bankers, the family never had a chance in hell of repaying
the loan. The house never should've been valued so high anyway. So
the house drops in price -- and has to drop still further, to
actually be affordable. The "value" it lost never really
existed.
Pets.com was never really worth a zillion dollars a share either,
or whatever ridiculous price it sold for at the height of the
dot-com bubble. This current "money loss"is just an economywide
price correction.
|6.12.09 @ 1:29PM|#
I have always liked the notion of "money Heaven". When the valuation of XYZCorp goes from $100.-/share to, umm, three, where does that "money" go? It goes to money Heaven. And your broker is on line two.
|6.12.09 @ 2:12PM|#
Then avoid semantics by replacing "money" with a term like
"value." Most housing bubble values were unrealistic and
unsustainable.
When any single overpriced asset crashes, somebody loses a ton of
money. That somebody is jocularly referred to as the "last fool."
For Pets.com (or any other company that collapses), it was whoever
bought the stock at the peak. They paid cash for it, and that cash
is gone from their wallet, not to be recovered.
So, when single company crashes, a lot of people lose actual money.
When a whole sector crashes, a lot of people lose actual
money; what they lose is the actual money paid for the
now-valueless asset.
Now, whoever got out at the peak has made their money in his/her
pocket. So where does the global loss come from?
It comes from the idea that the purchase at the peak was an equal
exchange. The seller gets cash, and the buyer gets an asset worth
just as much; if you bought Pets.com for $1mm, after the sale the
seller has $1mm worth of cash, and you have $1mm worth of stock, so
the total in the system is $2mm. When the asset loses value, then
the total in the system goes down.
Maybe it was "never" worth that much (although I would probably
disagree), so that the system was "never" worth $2mm, but you are
still just as broke.
Jennifer|6.12.09 @ 2:19PM|#
Maybe it was "never" worth that much (although I would
probably disagree), so that the system was "never" worth $2mm, but
you are still just as broke.
Oh, I'm not denying that; I'm just opposed to the idea that this
money "lost" from the economy is something that needs to be somehow
replaced. Nope; housing price drops are a GOOD thing in light of
how stratospheric the bubble was, and the inflated home values
vanishing from the economy is also a good thing. It wasn't real
value; it was just hallucinatory bubble value.
|6.12.09 @ 2:56PM|#
Oh, I'm not denying that; I'm just opposed to the idea that
this money "lost" from the economy is something that needs to be
somehow replaced.
Oh, sure. Unfortunately, much of the money was lost by politically
powerful people and groups, and so it will be replaced by tax
money.
We aren't deleveraging the economy (letting the lost value go up in
smoke), we are shifting leverage from the private sector to the
public sector.
|6.12.09 @ 3:28PM|#
So, when single company crashes, a lot of people lose actual
money. When a whole sector crashes, a lot of people lose actual
money; what they lose is the actual money paid for the
now-valueless asset.
Yes, but you don't take everyone who owns stock, multiply it by the
drop in the stock price, and declare that all those people have
lost that amount of money.
Because the vast majority of them did NOT buy at the peak. Only a
tiny fraction bought at or near the peak. Some of them probably
havn't lost any money at all, because they bought at some earlier
point before the run-up.
Similarly, a lot of those peiople bought their homes before the
bubble, watched the market price rise and fall, and lost nothing as
a result.
|6.12.09 @ 3:36PM|#
Oh, sure. Unfortunately, much of the money was lost by
politically powerful people and groups, and so it will be replaced
by tax money.
Zoink. CRUCIAL POINT.
Because the peak value was insured by AIG in a credit
default swap or some similar instrument. And AIG has since been
bailed out by the government.
You realize what this means right? It is a formula for guaranteed
gains. You wait for the stock price to rise, and then instead of
selling, you insure it against a decline in
value. Then, you don't have to worry about it falling, you just
wait until it falls and collect the insurance.
In a normal world, this would, of course, drive the insurance
company into bankruptcy, or any insurance company dumb enough
to insure something against declines in the market price. But in
our brave new "too big to fail" reality, the insurance company gets
bailed out by the taxpayers. So you can pretty much guarentee that
you'll never lose any money, ever.
This is why the AIG bailout is so damn scandalous.
Invisible Finger|6.12.09 @ 3:43PM|#
I saw were going to drop to at least the level of 9/10/2001. You know, the last day America was a somewhat functional democracy. Everything after that day was WERE AT WAR AND WE GOTTA PUMP UP THE ECONOMY AT THE SAME TIME BY HOOK OR BY CROOK pushed by both parties.
|6.12.09 @ 8:58PM|#
"Unrealized gains" are not the same as "money" where I come
from.
They are if you insure your unrealized gains with a taxpayer-funded
insurance agency.
chartsandcoffee|6.14.09 @ 10:44AM|#
Weekly Market Analysis From Charts and Coffee Blog is up - http://chartsandcoffee.blogspot.com/2009/06/sunday-night-coffee-61409.html
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245