Showing posts with label Three. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Three. Show all posts

Friday, April 12, 2013

Analysis: Mexico"s smaller homebuilders set to gain as top three struggle





Unfinished apartments are seen on the outskirts of Mexico City April 12, 2013. REUTERS/Henry Romero


1 of 2. Unfinished apartments are seen on the outskirts of Mexico City April 12, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Henry Romero






MEXICO CITY | Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:06pm EDT



MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexico’s top three homebuilders, facing heavy debt burdens and holding land where Mexicans no longer want to live, will sell fewer homes this year, leaving a market wide open for smaller rivals or even private equity funds to snap up business.


Latin America’s second-largest economy has a young population, high employment and a housing deficit of about 9 million houses but the biggest homebuilders misplayed that opportunity and overspent on land they are now struggling to sell.


Sales of Geo, Homex and Urbi’s low-cost homes in sprawling developments far from offices and schools have tumbled in the last year as government policy has changed to support a trend among Mexicans to buy older houses closer to city centers.


Smaller and medium-sized players such as Javer and Ara are now eyeing expansion as Geo (GEOB.MX), Homex (HOMEX.MX) and Urbi (URBI.MX) focus on tackling rising debt loads rather than increasing home sales.


“It’s going to be a complicated year but we expect to increase sales,” said Felipe Loera, the chief financial officer of Javer, which builds new houses for low-income workers.


Javer, which is in the process of buying construction company ICA’s (ICA.MX) housing unit, sold 17,533 houses in 2012 and Loera sees that increasing by 8 percent this year.


Ara, which sold 13,516 homes last year, expects revenue growth of 5 to 6 percent this year helped by the expansion of its middle-income home business.


“Mexico’s (real estate) market was worth about $ 15 billion last year and I estimate this year it should have an increase in sales of at least 10 to 15 percent,” said Eugene Towle, managing partner at real estate consulting company Softec.


Mexico’s housing sector is fragmented and competitive, with more than 1,000 companies, many of them regional or niche players.


Geo, Homex and Urbi, together with Consorcio Ara (ARA.MX) and Sare (SAREB.MX) – two companies which annually build fewer than half the number of homes sold by the top three – have about 20 percent of the total low-income new housing market.


“While the biggest have seen stock and bond prices battered, we also have examples of small and medium-sized regional companies that have fairly solid balance sheets and a good business,” said Standard & Poor’s analyst Fernanda Hernandez.


Shares in Ara have climbed about 30 percent since the start of 2013 to 5.39 pesos on Friday.


Shares in Hogar, which builds homes in the center and north of Mexico, are infrequently traded but are up 8.7 percent since the start of the year. By contrast, the broader Habita Mexican homebuilders index .IH is down 38 percent.


DEBT LOAD WORRIES


Urbi, Geo and Homex’s share prices have sunk in recent months because of worries about their debt loads, which soared as they bought up land that may no longer be eligible for government programs.


Mexico’s government in February announced a policy that prioritizes urban developments, including measures aimed at improving existing housing stock and building high-rise residences closer to cities.


The policy is in line with recent trends – Infonavit, the government-backed mortgage lender, has been underwriting more loans for used homes in recent years – but it will require a strategic shift from Geo, Homex and Urbi which already own large swathes of land that they bought for new suburban developments.


Smaller companies such as Ara will be able to more quickly adapt to the new policy, since they have smaller holdings of land and many already have diversified beyond low-income housing projects, analysts said.


“Ara has another advantage – its flexible balance sheet,” said Francisco Suarez, analyst at HSBC, noting that unlike larger rivals Ara is not weighed down by debt. HSBC has Ara on a neutral rating with a target price of 5.50 pesos.


Ara could increase home sales by about 2 percent this year and that would mean a slight rise in its market share, said Jorge Placido, analyst at brokerage Vector Casa de Bolsa.


Ara did not respond to requests for comment.


Javer, which is 60 percent owned by three private equity funds, has taken on debt to fund its business, but the debt is long term and unlike its larger rivals Javer has focused on profits and cash generation rather than growth, Loera said.


Fitch Ratings last month revised Javer’s rating to stable from negative watch, citing its successful management of its working capital at “a difficult time for an industry that was transitioning to the … new vertical housing initiative.”


In contrast, Fitch has Geo and Homex on negative watch and in March it cut Urbi’s rating deep into junk territory at CCC.


OTHER BENEFICIARIES


Private equity funds are also showing interest in the sector, said one analyst who asked not to be named because of his bank’s policy.


Javer’s Loera said that smaller companies that sell 5,000 to 10,000 homes a year could be of interest to investors.


“Many of those are still family companies … with a similar business model to Javer, focused on profitability and cash flow generation,” he said.


The shift by Infonavit, which underwrites most of Mexico’s mortgages, toward offering renovation loans and mortgages for existing houses could also prove a boost for companies such as Home Depot (HD.N), which has 100 stores in Mexico, and cement giant Cemex’s (CMXCPO.MX) retail chain, Construrama.


The number of loans Infonavit offered for home improvement more than doubled last year to 152,771 or 26 percent of its total new loans in 2012.


Infonavit expects to make 545,000 loans this year and though the majority will be for new homes, about 145,000 will be for used houses and 90,000 are earmarked for improvement plans.


(Additional reporting by Gabriela Lopez; Editing by Phil Berlowitz)





Reuters: Business News




Analysis: Mexico"s smaller homebuilders set to gain as top three struggle

Monday, April 8, 2013

Margaret Thatcher"s legacy: Three things that changed for the U.K.

Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, also known as “The Iron Lady,” died on Monday.


A leader whose tactics and policies were widely disputed during and after her 11-year term (the longest for any British politician), Thatcher made a lasting impact on the nation — economically, socially and culturally.


She was steadfast on her set of principles, which became known as “Thatcherism.” What exactly were those priniples? According to the New York Times they’re “the belief that economic freedom and individual liberty are interdependent, that personal responsibility and hard work are the only ways to national prosperity, and that the free-market democracies must stand firm against aggression.”


Here are three of the policies that’ll remain in her legacy:


1. Raising the tax burden.


Denying the advice of many academic economists at the time, she raised the tax burden and curtailed public sector budgets. According to the BBC, 364 of Britain’s leading economists condemned her policies in a letter to the Times, predicting a worsening slump in a recession already marked by mass unemployment. But the following eight years saw economic revival with annual growth above 3 percent.


2. Breaking labor unions.


Thatcher broke the power of the labor unions. She stood against the all-powerful National Union of Mineworkers and announced plans to shut down several plants and eliminate thousands of jobs. A violent strike by coal miners erupted. It lasted nearly a year, but ended without settlement — though with Thatcher as the clear victor.


3. “Popular Capitalism.”


Thatcher pushed hard for bringing “popular capitalism” to Britain, moving major state industries like telephones and gas supply to the private sector. The economy thrived to the point that in 1985, the Treasury announced it would not need deficit spending in the next fiscal budget.



What Thatcher didn’t change


Nonetheless, Thatcher did face a number of drawbacks.


She did not follow through with her plans to privatize the water industry or the National Health Service, and failed to revamp Social Security. Inflation rose and inflation rates remained high. Among political tensions, she resigned from office in 1990.


Latest Stories on Marketplace.org




Margaret Thatcher"s legacy: Three things that changed for the U.K.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Three more charged in insider trading probe



NEW YORK | Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:59pm EDT



NEW YORK (Reuters) – Federal authorities on Tuesday announced criminal charges against three new defendants in the government’s broad-based insider trading probe.


The U.S. Attorney in Manhattan said former Foundry Networks executive David Riley leaked tips about the company to Matthew Teeple, an analyst for an investment advisory firm to a family of hedge funds in San Francisco, and Teeple then passed the information to others who traded on it.


These trades resulted in more than $ 27 million in profits and avoided losses, prosecutors said.


Prosecutors also said a co-defendant, John Johnson, has pleaded guilty to related charges.


All three defendants were also charged by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in separate civil proceedings.


(Reporting By Bernard Vaughan; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick)



Reuters: Business News




Three more charged in insider trading probe

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Inflation Targeting Revisited; Three Major Fed-Sponsored Bubbles; Who Benefits From Inflation?

A post on deflation in Sweden (which its central bank does not want) got me to thinking about inflation targeting once again.

Sweden’s central bank, the Riksbank, has an inflation target  of  2 per cent as measured by CPI.” Bernanke has a similar target, as do many central banks.


The first major problem with inflation targeting is that increases in money supply and credit (the true measure of inflation) frequently appear in the form of asset bubbles, not consumer prices.


Even if that were not the case, it’s easy to show why 2% inflation targeting is a bad thing.


Inflation Targeting at 2% a Year



click on any chart for sharper image

Real Disposable Income



Real Disposable Income Per Capita



Real Disposable Income Per Capita Detail



As long as wages and income keep up with inflation targeting, and as long as asset bubbles do not form, central banks can get away with their highway robbery tactics.


At some point however, asset bubbles do form and that’s where big problems start. The Fed has sponsored three major bubbles in recent history.


Three Major Fed-Sponsored Bubbles


  1. 2000 DotCom Bubble

  2. 2005 Housing and Credit Bubble

  3. 2012 Stock Market Bubble

In the wake of the dot-com bust, the Fed (via loose monetary policy) sponsored a housing and credit bubble that caused the global financial crisis. The Fed did not see the housing bubble partially because prices are not in the CPI, but primarily because Bernanke and Greenspan have the common sense of a rock.


Following the housing/credit bubble bust, the Fed’s “too big to fail” policy bailed out the banks at taxpayer expense. The Fed’s subsequent QE to infinity policy created yet another stock major bubble that few see (simply because it has not yet burst).


All the while, price inflation marches on, even if credit inflation does not (roughly the current state of affairs).


Thus, in addition to the asset bubble problem, the second sad moral of this story is simple: Pursue price inflation long enough, then jobs move elsewhere and real wages are guaranteed to not keep up.


Starting in a major way in the year 2000, jobs and capital moved overseas because US wages were uncompetitive globally. Let’s not stop there because it gets even worse.


Income Gap Discussion


In addition to the “Income Gap” one must also consider “Income Skew”.


Under the Fed’s inflationary policies, a select few percent have done exceptionally well, another few percent have done well, and another (perhaps slightly larger group) have barely kept up.


The bottom 80 percent or so have fallen much further behind than the above per capita charts suggest.


Income Skew


I explained why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in Top 1% Received 121% of Income Gains During the Recovery, Bottom 99% Lose .4%; How, Why, Solutions


In response to that article a Reader Asked Me to Prove “Inflation Benefits the Wealthy” (At the Expense of Everyone Else)


CPI Percent Change From Year Ago



click on any chart for sharper image


Except for a brief period in 2009, price inflation has been positive. The question is “Who Benefited?”


I claim it is those with “first access to money” namely banks and the already wealthy. A few charts courtesy of Doug Short at Advisor Perspectives will prove my point.


Real US Household Incomes



In “real” (CPI-adjusted) terms, 50% of households are no better off than they were in 1988. Let’s dig a litter deeper.


Growth in Real Household Income by Quintile



The above chart shows percentage income growth by quintile since 1967. Since 1988, the bottom, 4th and middle quintiles (a combined 60% of households) have negative real income growth.


The next chart shows the same thing in a different way.


Real Household Income by Quintile



No matter what your timeframe, only the top quintile did well. And from 1980 until 2000 the top 5% got the lion’s share of income gains.


Inflation is Theft


Inflation is an insidious hidden tax that benefits those with first access to money (the banks and the already wealthy), and government (via sales taxes, property taxes, and income taxes).


Government bureaucrats take your money and redistribute it primarily for wasteful pet projects in their districts or to those who contribute to the politicians’ campaigns.


In spite of the often-heard mantra that “inflation wipes away debt”, I suggest otherwise. Income typically does not keep up with expenses, and most have too few assets to inflate. The poor (last on the credit totem pole) overpay for their assets with cheap credit given to them at precisely the wrong times (as happened right before the housing bust).

Inflation Clobbers Those on Fixed Income


In case you missed it, please consider Hello Ben Bernanke, Meet “Stephanie”, my response to a reader on fixed income attempting to live on Social Security plus interest on a $ 16,000 CD.


If routine price inflation did not benefit the banks and the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, we probably would not have it.


Simple Solution (Easier Said than Done)


Conceptually, the way to eliminate the problem is simple: abolish the Fed and get rid of fractional reserve lending.


In practice, the idea is easier said than done, because the wealthy are in control of the system and they are the ones who benefit from inflation.


Wine Country Conference


I am hosting an economic conference on April 5 in Sonoma, California. Proceeds go to the Les Turner ALS Foundation (Lou Gehrig’s Disease).


Please see My Wife Joanne Has Passed Away; Stop and Smell the Lilacs for my association with the disease.


To learn about the economic conference with world-class speakers including John Hussman, Michael Pettis, Jim Chanos, John Mauldin, Mike “Mish” Shedlock, Chris Martenson with guest moderator Lauren Lyster and other Special Guests, please visit Wine Country Conference April 5, 2013


Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com


Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis




Inflation Targeting Revisited; Three Major Fed-Sponsored Bubbles; Who Benefits From Inflation?