In recent days, Germany's
Commerzbank has had to go to the markets to sell around €3.5
billion of additional shares to try to bolster its capital position.
Its shares have already fallen by almost 40% over the last few
months, and this share offering was put out, with a further discount
of around 40%. But, the real fears surround Deutsche Bank. It is
Germany's largest, private financial institution. The problem facing
all of these banks now is not their speculative positions in gold,
but their speculative positions in property! That applies at least
as much to banks in France and Germany, and other Northern European
economies, where a large rental sector means they have not suffered
from house price bubbles, as it does to the southern periphery and
UK, where they have.
In the UK, the latest
casualty appears to be the Co-op Bank. It is not known for its
recklessness and speculative activity, but a couple of years ago it
merged with Britannia Building Society. The Britannia, like all
other such institutions seems to have got carried away with the
housing bubble. Just as years of falling gold prices led banks to
believe that it was a forever one way bet, so years of rising house
prices, as the bubble continued to inflate, seems to have convinced
them that this was a one way bet too. Like the US mortgage lenders,
like Northern Rock, and a multitude of other banks and financial
institutions who thought they could lend out to people who might not
pay back, because the value of the property, they were lending
against, would always go up, so it seems, the Britannia has found
itself with a lot of bad mortgage debt, on its books, debt the Co-op
has now inherited.
But, these problems are
dwarfed by the potential problems that could imminently manifest
themselves amongst the bigger banks. The big UK banks, face the
prospect that over 1 million people have borrowed from them, for
property, but have no means of repaying the capital sum of their
mortgages. Twenty or thirty years ago, that would be no problem.
The bank would repossess the house, and invariably be able to sell it
for more than the debt. But, today, outside London, house prices are
falling by the week. Selling prices are around 30-40% below initial
asking prices, and houses are staying unsold on the market for a year
or more. Yet, even so, as unemployment rises, and real wages get
hammered, even fewer people can afford to buy, and those who already
have, hang on by their finger nails, only because of unsustainably
low interest rates, and rising levels of other debt to cover their
weekly spending. Osbourne's proposals will only worsen that
situation, encouraging even more debt, but doing nothing to enable
people to pay it back.
In fact, in Stoke, the
Council has put up 35 houses for sale at just £1, and yet still couldn't get interest in eight of them!!! Under
those conditions, its no wonder the banks are avoiding having to
repossess properties, because to do so would mean not only that they
would get back no monthly payments at all, but they would face having
to sell these properties at prices way below the debt outstanding.
That is if they could sell them at all!!! Instead the banks have
engaged in a policy of “extend and pretend”.
But, as stated above,
Deutsche Bank demonstrates the sheer scale of this problem, and why
Governments and Central Banks are desperate to paper over the cracks,
and stop the flood waters rushing in. German Banks, including
Deutsche Bank, lent to other banks across Europe, including those in
Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy. Those banks, in turn,
engaged in a frenzy of reckless lending, to finance mortgages and to
finance construction, that inflated a massive property bubble. In
Ireland, that bubble burst and crashed the banks. Rather than let
those foreign banks, finance houses, and investors pick up the tab,
which is what Iceland did, Ireland, instead bailed out the banks with
taxpayers money, thereby protecting all of those financiers and
foreign banks. It then started to recoup that hole in its finances
by massive cuts in state spending.

The bank stress tests were
supposed to cover this, and the new Basle III regulations were
supposed to ensure that banks increased their capital to ensure they
could cope with such bad property loans. The Co-ops' downgrade, by
Moody's, and its need to add capital, and Commerzbank's share sale,
are part of that process. Yet, Commerzbank's need to offer its,
already depressed, shares at a 40% discount, shows the problem banks
face in raising this capital. Italian banks faced a similar problem
in recent months, having to offer them at similarly huge discounts.


The problem seems to be such
that the European banks are engaging in various manoeuvres to hide
the amount of debt they actually hold, so as to avoid having to
obtain additional capital, or to reduce how much they have to obtain.
One of these is once again to utilise derivatives. The banks argue
that this is all fine, because these derivatives are hedged. In
other words, they have insurance that, if any contract goes bad, some
other financial institution will compensate them. The means by which
that occurs are complex, such as holding one instrument that will
rise in value if another falls etc.

Its reported that Deutsche Bank's total global exposure to derivatives is €55
Trillion!!! To put that in perspective, Germany's annual GDP is only
€3 Trillion. That is an exposure equal to 20 times German GDP. By
contrast, the Cyprus Banks assets were 8 times annual GDP. Deutsche
Banks exposure to these derivatives is on the same scale as the
Luxembourg banks ratio of assets to GDP, and Luxembourg is likely to
be one of the next economies to go the way of Cyprus.

The wholesale collapse of
those prices in Spain and other parts of Europe, let alone in
Britain, has not happened yet, but, just as it did in the US and
Ireland, it most certainly will. Whether that happens because some
crisis sparks a run on the banks, or because interest rates rise, as
the supply of capital falls relative to demand, or the run on the
banks is sparked by a collapse in those house prices is only a
question of what comes first the chicken or the egg.
Back To Part 1
Back To Part 1
2 comments:
Isn't property in Britain in short supply though (which is why the prices have stayed up) due to draconian planning restrictions, unlike in the United States, Ireland and Spain, where vast amounts of speculative construction caused oversupply and a price crash?
The only way to push prices down significantly would be to build roughly 500k new homes a year for a decade (increasing stock from 27 to 32 million), of which 70-80% would have to be social housing funded by government (or local government) borrowing. Don't hold your breath.
Despite populist gestures like Help to Buy, the future is therefore less about mortgages and more about outright ownership for both occupation and renting out, with homes becoming cherished legacies and mobility from renting to buying grinding to a near halt. The musical chairs of the last 30 years has now stopped, which is why the government is trying to jump-start the market with cheap loans. Another way of looking at this is that we're seeing a gradual unwinding of historic property debt, which is likely to last for at least another decade and possibly two. A large scale house building programme would jeopardise this orderly liquidation, so it is likely that supply will continue to be constrained in order to keep asset holders and developers happy (and we'll blame restrictive planning regulations instead). That does not look like much of a recovery.
From Arse To Elbow: Happy Days are Here Again
George,
There is no shortage of supply! I set out why some time ago here.
In 2009, when credit became hard to obtain, prices crashed by 20% overnight. Have houses suddenly become in short supply since then? No, clearly not, which is why outside London, prices are falling by around 30%, and why huge numbers of houses are remaining unsold for more than year.
David is wrong in his analysis about it needing 500k houses a year to send prices down. In 1990, prices fell by 40% within a few months. It certainly was not because the supply suddenly increased. The same is true in pretty much every other instance of a house price crash following a bubble.
The only one that doesn't follow that is probably the one that arose at the end of the 1940's. In 1947, when my dad came out of the army, like many other people at the time, he and my mum were desperate for somewhere to live. Eventually, they paid £1,000 for a terraced house. Could they have waited just over two years, they could have bought a new semi-detached house in the same village for just £250!!!
Its that kind of consequence that makes me very concerned that many people are being set up for a life time of debt that they will never escape from as prices crash.
In fact, there is 50% more housing provision per head of population today than there was in the 1970's. What, in fact has changed is that the structure of households has changed with more single people being convinced they should go into debt to buy their own house. It is really an increase in demand sparked by low interest rates and easy credit that is behind the speculation not shortage of supply.
In fact, private housebuilding is not much different than it has been historically. The difference in building is almost exclusively public, but public house building has been sporadic, historically.
Finally, its not particularly planning that restricts supply, by land hoarding. As house prices crash, land prices will crash too, and the hoarders will quickly turn in to anxious sellers.
Post a Comment