Rising US wealth doesn't generate spending surge
The
stock market rallied to record heights last month, home prices have
rebounded and the wealth of American households has returned to where it
was before the Great Recession. That's just what Federal ...
Associated Press
By | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago
Economists cite several reasons. The biggest gains aren't going to the vast majority of Americans. Many families are still nursing big losses on the value of their home, and the big drop in home prices from 2006 through 2011 has undermined their confidence. Moreover, their incomes have been crimped by a weak labor market and tax hikes that took effect in January.
So Wolff looked at the net worth of the median U.S. household — those smack in the middle, where half of households earn more and half less. The median family's net worth is far more modest than the average: $61,000, Wolff estimates. That is $50,800, or 47 percent, short of where it was in 2007.
But housing isn't helping much yet — even though home prices are bouncing back from a devastating real estate bust. Many Americans still haven't seen the value of their home fully recover. Nearly 1 in 5 homes are worth less than the mortgages on it, CoreLogic reports. According to the Fed, overall homeowners' equity, worth nearly $9.1 trillion on March 31, is still $4 trillion, or 31 percent, lower than it was at the end of 2005.
As a result, many homeowners don't feel much wealthier than when the Fed started its rounds of bond purchases. Many can't take advantage of the super-low rates Bernanke engineered to refinance their mortgage and lower their monthly payments — let alone to take cash out of their home equity to splurge on goods the way Americans did in the mid-2000s.
Mortgage giant Freddie Mac says homeowners took out just $8.1 billion in cash when they refinanced mortgages in the first three months of 2013. From April through June 2006, at the height of the housing boom, they cashed out $84 billion.
For ordinary Americans, any gains in wealth have been partially offset by losses in income. According to Sentier Research, median household income in April was $51,456, nearly 7 percent lower when adjusted for inflation than it was when the Great Recession began in December 2007.
Americans' wallets were also pinched in January by an increase in the Social Security tax. The hike amounts to $1,000 a year for a family earning $50,000.
For all these reasons, the wealth effect "has grown more muted," Zandi says. In the past, a $1 increase in net worth overall could boost consumer spending by about 5 cents. These days, Zandi calculates, $1 in increased wealth generates just 2 cents to 2.5 cents in spending.
And generating wealth may be even harder if the Fed goes ahead with plans to scale back and eventually end its bond purchases. The stock market has taken a beating since the Fed revealed the news Wednesday: The Dow dropped 206 points Wednesday and 353 points Thursday before bouncing back 41 points to close at 14,799 Friday.
end quote from:
Rising US wealth doesn't generate spending surge
Wealth effect falls flat: Rising stock, house prices aren't sending shoppers to the mall
By | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago- View PhotoAssociated Press -
FILE - In this Monday, June 17, 2013, photo, specialist Peter Elkins is reflected in one of his screens at his post on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. In the last six months
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The stock market
rallied to record heights last month, home prices have rebounded and
the wealth of American households has returned to where it was before
the Great Recession.
That's just what Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said he wanted when the Fed announced a third round of bond purchases last September.
The purchases weren't just meant
to push interest rates down and make it cheaper for businesses and
consumers to borrow — the traditional aim of the Fed's easy money
policies. They were also designed to pump up stock and house prices,
making Americans feel richer and more willing to spend — a process
economists call the "wealth effect."
But the wealth effect may not
have had the economic impact Bernanke hoped it would. Sure, the Dow
Jones industrial average is up 11 percent since the bond-buying policy
was announced in mid-September, despite plummeting Wednesday and
Thursday on news that the Fed could end the purchases by the middle of
2014. And overall household wealth hit $70.3 trillion at the end of March, regaining the $12.7 trillion lost in the recession.
But Americans still aren't shopping with enough gusto to add much momentum to the economy. Consumer spending
actually fell in April from March. And economic output — 70 percent of
which comes from consumer spending — is expected to grow at an annual
rate of just 2 percent from April through June, down from a 2.4 percent
rate the first three months of 2013.
Why aren't the impressive increases in wealth helping the economy
bounce back as briskly as it normally does four years after a recession?
Economists cite several reasons. The biggest gains aren't going to the vast majority of Americans. Many families are still nursing big losses on the value of their home, and the big drop in home prices from 2006 through 2011 has undermined their confidence. Moreover, their incomes have been crimped by a weak labor market and tax hikes that took effect in January.
The biggest gains in wealth are
going to wealthy households that tend to save a big chunk of their
incomes and spend a smaller proportion on basics such as food and
clothing. "Those guys don't spend much," says economist Edward Wolff of New York University.
The disparity shows up in numbers Wolff calculated. He found that the
average U.S. household's net worth rose this year to $522,000. But the
average is skewed higher by the vast net worth of America's wealthiest —
Bill Gates' $67 billion, for instance, according to Forbes magazine.
So Wolff looked at the net worth of the median U.S. household — those smack in the middle, where half of households earn more and half less. The median family's net worth is far more modest than the average: $61,000, Wolff estimates. That is $50,800, or 47 percent, short of where it was in 2007.
One reason: The biggest gains
have come from the rise in financial markets. And the benefits of the
stock market's surge have gone disproportionately to America's
wealthiest households. Wolff calculates that the wealthiest 10 percent
of U.S. households own more than 80 percent of stocks, even including
retirement accounts such as 401 (k) plans. "The recent stock market boom has really benefited just the top," Wolff says.
The wealth effect from gains in financial markets is much weaker than the effect from gains in housing wealth:
A $1 increase in housing wealth generates about 8 cents of consumer
spending. A $1 rise in stock wealth generates 3 cents. And a $1 rise in
bond wealth generates less than 1 cent, says Mark Zandi, chief economist
at Moody's Analytics.
Housing has a bigger bang for the buck because it is the main source
of wealth for middle-class families, and they spend almost all their
earnings. Bonds and stocks tend to be held by the wealthy, who spend a
smaller share of theirs.
But housing isn't helping much yet — even though home prices are bouncing back from a devastating real estate bust. Many Americans still haven't seen the value of their home fully recover. Nearly 1 in 5 homes are worth less than the mortgages on it, CoreLogic reports. According to the Fed, overall homeowners' equity, worth nearly $9.1 trillion on March 31, is still $4 trillion, or 31 percent, lower than it was at the end of 2005.
As a result, many homeowners don't feel much wealthier than when the Fed started its rounds of bond purchases. Many can't take advantage of the super-low rates Bernanke engineered to refinance their mortgage and lower their monthly payments — let alone to take cash out of their home equity to splurge on goods the way Americans did in the mid-2000s.
Mortgage giant Freddie Mac says homeowners took out just $8.1 billion in cash when they refinanced mortgages in the first three months of 2013. From April through June 2006, at the height of the housing boom, they cashed out $84 billion.
For ordinary Americans, any gains in wealth have been partially offset by losses in income. According to Sentier Research, median household income in April was $51,456, nearly 7 percent lower when adjusted for inflation than it was when the Great Recession began in December 2007.
Americans' wallets were also pinched in January by an increase in the Social Security tax. The hike amounts to $1,000 a year for a family earning $50,000.
For all these reasons, the wealth effect "has grown more muted," Zandi says. In the past, a $1 increase in net worth overall could boost consumer spending by about 5 cents. These days, Zandi calculates, $1 in increased wealth generates just 2 cents to 2.5 cents in spending.
And generating wealth may be even harder if the Fed goes ahead with plans to scale back and eventually end its bond purchases. The stock market has taken a beating since the Fed revealed the news Wednesday: The Dow dropped 206 points Wednesday and 353 points Thursday before bouncing back 41 points to close at 14,799 Friday.
Rising US wealth doesn't generate spending surge
Without another Glass Steagle Act:
Glass–Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act
The Glass–Steagall Act
is a term often applied to the entire Banking Act of 1933, after its
Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D) of Virginia, and ...
you are not going to see spending because there are no useful rules in place to make it safe to spend anymore here in the U.S. People spend when they feel safe. There are no such rules anymore for them to ever feel safe to spend until another Glass Steagall Act is in place.
People worldwide got burned worse in the Great Recession than they have at any time since the Great Depression and World War II. Trust is Gone. Maybe permanently.
People worldwide got burned worse in the Great Recession than they have at any time since the Great Depression and World War II. Trust is Gone. Maybe permanently.
No comments:
Post a Comment