Archive for June, 2009

FORWARD CONTRACTS ON STOCK PORTFOLIOS

Because modem portfolio theory and good common sense dictate that investors should hold diversified portfolios, it is reasonable to assume that forward contracts on specific stock portfolios would be useful. Suppose a pension fund manager knows that in three months he will need to sell about $20 million of stock to make payments to retirees. The manager has analyzed the portfolio and determined the precise identities of the stocks he wants to sell and the number of shares of each that he would like to sell. Thus the manager has designated a specific subportfolio to be sold. The problem is that the prices of these stocks in three months are uncertain. The manager can, however, lock in the sale prices by entering into a forward contract to sell the portfolio. This can be done one of two ways. The manager can enter into a forward contract on each stock that he wants to sell.
Alternatively, he can enter into a forward contract on the overall portfolio. The first way would be more costly, as each contract would incur administrative costs, whereas the second way would incur only one set of costs. Assume that the manager chooses the second method. He provides a list of the stocks and number of shares of each he wishes to sell to the dealer and obtains a quote. The dealer gives him a quote of $20,200,000. So, in three months, the manager will sell the stock to the dealer and receive $20,200,000. The transaction can be structured to call for either actual delivery or cash settlement, but in either case, the client will effectively receive $20,200,000 for the stock.’

No Comments

what does selling or buying a house really cost?

Brokerage Commissions, a direct cost: In the United States, if a house is sold, the seller’s broker typically receives six percent of the value of the house as commission (and splits this commission with the buyer’s agent). Thus, if a real estate agent manages to sell a house for $300,000, the commission is $18,000. Put di?erently, without an agent, the buyer and seller could have split the $18,000 between them. (Of course, brokers do many useful things, such as matching buyers and sellers, shepherding the selling process, etc., so the $18,000 may just be the intrinsic transaction cost to selling a house. However, inconsistent with this view, real estate commissions are much lower in other countries, and it is di?cult to see why the cost of selling houses would be exactly 6% in practically all markets in the United States.)
Although only the seller pays the broker’s cost, it makes sense to think of transaction costs in terms of round-trip costs—how much worse you are o? if you buy and then immediately sell an asset. You would mislead yourself if you thought that when you buy a house, you have not incurred any transaction costs because the seller had to pay them—you have incurred an implicit transaction cost in the future when you need to resell your investment. Of course, you usually do not immediately sell assets, so you should not forget about the timing of your future selling transaction costs in your NPV calculations.
Housing transaction costs are so high and so important that they are worth a digression. If you borrow to ?nance the investment, transaction may be higher than you think. The real estate agent earns 6% of the value of the house, not of the amount of money you put into the house. On a house purchase of $500,000, the typical loan is 80% of the purchase price, or $400,000, leaving you to put in $100,000 in equity. Selling the house the day after the purchase reduces the owner’s wealth of $100,000 by the commission of $30,000—for an investment rate of return of –30%. This is not a risk component; it is a pure and certain transaction cost.
Let us brie?y consider what happens if the house price decreases or increases by 10%. If house prices decline by 10%, or the buyer overpays by 10%, the house can only be resold for $450,000, which leaves $423,000 after agent commissions. The house owner is left with $23,000 on a $100,000 investment. A 10% decline in real estate values has reduced the home owner’s net worth by 77%! In comparison, a 10% increase in real estate values increases the value of the house to $550,000, which means that $517,000 is left after real estate commissions. The house owner’s rate of return for the same up movement is thus only 17%.
With the tools you already know, you can even estimate how the value of a typical house might change if the Internet could instantly and perfectly replace real estate agents. You cannot be too accurate—you can only obtain a back-of-the-envelope estimate. A typical house in the United States sells every seven years or so. Work with a $1,000,000 house, and assume that the expected house capital-gain appreciation is 0%—you consume all gains as rental enjoyment. In this case, the house will stay at $1,000,000 in value, the commission will stay constant at$60,000 and will be paid every 7 years. If the appropriate 7-year interest rate were 40% (around 5% per annum), then the value of the brokerage fees would be a perpetuity of $60, 000/40% = $150, 000. The capitalized transaction cost would therefore have lowered the value of the $1,000,000 house by $150,000. If you could eliminate all commissions, e.g., by selling equally e?ciently over the Internet, such a house would increase in value by about 15%. However, if you believed that the brokerage commission were to go up by the in?ation rate (2% per annum, or 15% per 7-years), the friction would not be $150,000 but $240,000—more like 25% of the value of the house, not just 15%.
Other direct costs: In addition to direct agent commissions, there are also many other direct transaction costs. These can range from advertising, to insurance company payments, to house inspectors, to the local land registry, to postage—all of which cost the parties money.
Indirect and opportunity costs: Then there is the seller’s own time required to learn as much . about the value of the house as possible, and the e?ort involved to help the agent sell the house. These may be signi?cant costs, even if they involve no cash outlay. After all, the seller could spend this time working or playing instead. Furthermore, not every house is suitable for every house buyer, and the seller has to ?nd the right buyer. If the house cannot be sold immediately but stays empty for a while, the foregone rent is part of the transaction cost. The implicit cost of not having the house be put to its best alternative use is called an opportunity cost. Opportunity costs are just as real as direct cash costs.

, ,

No Comments