Failed banks, widespread foreclosures, impaired agriculture sector and manufacturing industry, large scale unemployment and homelessness.... these were some of the predominant characteristics of the US economy during the Panic of 1819 - the first major financial crisis in the American history. It was one of the most hard-hitting crisis that the nation had ever witnessed - largely because the national financial system was still in its infancy and never before had the Americans witnessed crisis of such magnitude in their country.
What was the Panic of 1819?
The Panic of 1819 was the first major financial crisis or economic recession that the US economy was subjected to. This crisis situation occurred towards the end of the Era of Good Feelings in the first quarter of 19th century. The buildup of this crisis had begun with the War of 1812. In 1818, the British investors turning their attention towards the Indian subcontinent for cotton and this turned out to be a major trigger for large scale panic among the masses, which eventually resulted in economic depression in the United States. It started with drastic fall in land prices across the United States, and went for the next three years till 1822. One thing led to another, and soon enough the entire economy had come to a standstill - even before the government could figure out what was happening.
What Caused the Panic of 1819?
Unlike the previous financial crisis which the nation was subjected to, the Panic of 1819 causes were rooted within the US economy. While the public debt of 1812 and Louisiana Purchase had its own share in causing the Panic of 1819, the most prominent cause for the same was an irresponsible banking system - with the Second Bank of the United States at its forefront, prevailing in the country during this period. In its attempt to raise money to pay off the debt which had accumulated after the War of 1812, the administration hiked the prices of goods - which, in turn, resulted in inflation. In the post-war US economy, the absence of a nationalized banking system gave state banks the power to print currency. With no monitoring authority as such, these banks pumped enormous amount of money in the economy - with no backing of any sort, and this eventually became one of the most prominent causes for inflation in the country.
When the Second Bank of the United States came into existence, it walked on the same path as the state banks - towards economic expansion, owing to the fact that this expansion added to nation's revenue. Only when it realized that this inflation is affecting the economy, it switched over from its expansionary stance to a deflationary stance - with the intent of curbing inflation in the economy, in 1818. In a bid to control inflation, the Second Bank contracted the money supply and called in all the outstanding loans - which, in turn, resulted in failure of many state banks. As the British investors turned all their attention to their new colonies in Asia, it resulted in large scale loss in the agriculture sector - which eventually resulted in a full fledged financial crisis in the nation.
What Were the Effects of Panic of 1819?
The Panic of 1819 marked the end of the policy of economic expansion in the United States of America. Similarly, it had long lasting effects on the banking system in the country. The new financial policies that followed the Panic of 1819 were ideal for the economic development of the nation. Panic of 1819 effects were most obvious in the southern and western states. In the field of politics, it allowed Andrew Jackson to strengthen his base in the nation. Most important of all, the Panic of 1819 was a lesson learned for American citizens who realized that the role of the government in their lives.
The Panic of 1819 finally came to an end in 1823, but that was just one of the numerous financial crisis that the United States was subjected to during the 19th century. Other financial crisis of this period were the Panic of 1837, Panic of 1857, Panic of 1873 and the Panic of 1893. Even though the Panic of 1819 was not as intense as the Great Depression - which was the largest economic depression in the 20th century, it did did replace the foundation of US economy with a new- stronger foundation.

Before going into deeper analysis of the subject matter, I cannot avoid mentioning the favorite joke of economists on recession and depression. When other people lose their jobs, it's a recession. When you lose yours, it's a depression.. The joke involves some subjective judgment to differentiate recession from depression. Definition of recession and depression follows no ironclad rule. It can be differentiated only by judging the nature of economic downfall and its outcome. Both are similar in few aspects when negative impacts are taken into account. The difference lies only on the effects and the lasting effect of recession and depression. The former lasts for short period while the latter has long lasting effect. Recession vs depression has been studied by economists deeply and you can also get a better concept after reading this article. Read more on economic recession and depression - definition and difference.
Let us first study the history of depression and recession. The Great Depression was a severe economic downturn during World War II. It started in the US in the year 1929 and lasted till late 1930s. It had devastating effects and gradually showed far flung effects world wide. Economic slowdown with decrease in profit price and increase in the rate of unemployment were prominent during this term. Now that was the period when the globe was worst affected by long lasting depression. In December 2007, the US economy was affected by recession. This was a period of financial crisis. The year 2007-2010 is referred as The Great Recession. The effects were globalized with pronounced deceleration of economic activity. Read more on effects of the great depression.
Recession Vs Depression - Differences
Recession is usually measured in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It is general a slowdown of business activity for a particular period of time. It can also be defined as a contraction in business cycle and decline in Gross Domestic Product for two consecutive quarters. The National Bureau of Economic Statistics (NBER), describes economic recession in the following words. 'A recession occurs when a significant decline in the economic activity is spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible to real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale sales.' The signs of recession are reduced output, increase in the rate of unemployment, low corporate profits and increased rate of bankruptcies. The worst recession in the last 60 years was seen in the US that started in November 1973 and ended in March 1975, during which the GDP fell by 4.9%. Read more on causes of economic recession.
Depression is a severe form of recession that involves complete or deep decline in investment and output. All the effects of recession are seen in depression as well only taking a larger shape. The thumb rule for determining economic depression is decline in real GDP by 10% or more. Although there's no yardstick for defining depression, it is normally accepted that recession lasting for more than 3 years turns to be depression. The last depression in the US started in August 1929 and lasted till 1938 during which the GDP fell to 18.2 percent.
Difference between recession and depression can be judged by the time frame and economic conditions. Depression is sustained and a more severe downturn in the economy. Recession vs depression thus can be differentiated on the basic of its effect on the business economy, fall in the rate of GDP and the period of lasting.
Recession Vs Depression - Similarities
Whatever be the nature of economic downfall, either recession or depression, the effects on the economy and financial market is more or less the same. Abnormal increase in unemployment, shrinking output and investment are the worst effects of this slowdown. Rising bankruptcies, financial crisis, reduced amount of trade and commerce are also the outcome of recession and depression. Increase in rate of high volatile currency, fluctuations in money (devaluations) and price deflation accentuate financial crisis. These two conditions in the market also have wide reaching effects like low consumer confidence, disruption in retirement plans and fall in stock prices. These are the negative aspects which are common for both recession and depression.
I hope this article on recession vs depression has sufficed you all details about these economic calamities. Be it recession or depression, the ultimate effect is NEGATIVE and ample time is required for the revival of economic conditions.

 
Marc Faber on Gold, Silver, Deflation and the U.S. Economy
 

伯南克考慮 QE3救經濟

美國聯邦儲備局主席伯南克（Ben Bernanke）昨晚出席眾議院金融服務業委員會聽證會，首次表明有可能推出新一輪購債計劃，即市場期待的第三輪量化寬鬆政策（QE3），但強調只在考慮階段，推出的前提是經濟沒如預期在下半年回升。

伯南克一連兩日在國會發表半年度貨幣政策報告；他擔心近期的經濟疲弱可能較預期持久，通縮風險或會重臨，勞工市場近兩個月表現差強人意，遠較儲局預期疲弱，故有需要考慮再推刺激經濟措施。

伯南克考慮了三種方式，以進一步放寬貨幣政策︰第一種是儲局提供較明確的指引，承諾聯邦基金利率將維持低位一段長時間；另一種是，一如對上兩次，推出另一輪購債計劃，或增加儲局所持債券的平均到期日；最後一種是，儲局就銀行放在儲局的儲備金，將給予較少利息，從而令短期利率有下調壓力。

鑑於儲局購債計劃的成效，一直受到議員及外間的質疑，所以伯南克昨天也抽時間推銷一下購債計劃的好處。他指出，剛完成的第二輪購債計劃，即坊間慣稱的QE2，成功令美國長期債息降低0.1至0.3厘，作用相當於儲局調低聯邦基金利率0.4至1.2厘。目前聯邦基金利率的水平範圍為零至0.25厘。

伯南克重申近期物價上升，主要受短暫因素影響，如能源及商品價格上升，所以物價未來應會回落。他表示，如政府無法在8月2日提高借貸上限，為取得應急資金，政府惟有大幅削減多項供款，包括醫療保健、社會保障及軍隊薪金。

分析師稱 再推量寬阻力較大

盡管伯南克明示可能進一步放寬貨幣政策，但不少經濟師都認為，除非經濟相當疲弱及通脹顯著回落，否則不相信儲局會加推QE3，因為與推出QE2時相比，目前阻力較大，包括來自國內外的壓力。

伯南克昨天演說，其實對經濟亦有樂觀的一面。他仍然認為目前的經濟放緩只受短暫因素影響，包括能源價格高企，以及日本地震後供應鏈中斷，令全球製造業受影響。他重申經濟可在下半年回升，若是如此，則不需要較寬鬆的貨幣政策。

蘇格蘭皇家銀行首席美國經濟師Tom Porcelli認為，伯南克雖說不排除推QE3，但同時間認為目前的經濟放緩是短暫的，故未必需要再推刺激經濟政策。因此，這只算是口頭建議，並無實質承諾。

 

Fed官員Fisher﹕Fed已採取了足夠多的措施來刺激經濟

The Economy Is Worse Than You Think
2011/6/10 Wall Street Journal
Martin Feldstein
The policies of the Obama administration have led to the weak condition of the American economy. Growth during the coming year will be subpar at best, leaving high or rising levels of unemployment and underemployment.
The drop in GDP growth to just 1.8% in the first quarter of 2011, from 3.1% in the final quarter of last year, understates the extent of the decline. Two-thirds of that 1.8% went into business inventories rather than sales to consumers or other final buyers. This means that final sales growth was at an annual rate of just 0.6% and the actual quarterly increase was just 0.15% -- dangerously close to no rise at all. A sustained expansion cannot be built on inventory investment. It takes final sales to induce businesses to hire and to invest.
The picture is even gloomier if we look in more detail. Estimates of monthly GDP indicate that the only growth in the first quarter of 2011 was from February to March. After a temporary rise in March, the economy began sliding again in April, with declines in real wages, in durable-goods orders and manufacturing production, in existing home sales, and in real per-capita disposable incomes. It is not surprising that the index of leading indicators fell in April, only the second decline since it began to rise in the spring of 2009.
The data for May are beginning to arrive and are even worse than April's. They are marked by a collapse in payroll-employment gains; a higher unemployment rate; manufacturers' reports of slower orders and production; weak chain-store sales; and a sharp drop in consumer confidence.
How has the Obama administration contributed to this failure to achieve a robust and sustainable recovery?
The administration's most obvious failure was its misguided fiscal policies: the cash-for-clunkers subsidy for car buyers, the tax credit for first-time home buyers, and the $830 billion 'stimulus' package. Cash-for-clunkers gave a temporary boost to motor-vehicle production but had no lasting impact on the economy. The home-buyer credit stimulated the demand for homes only temporarily.
As for the 'stimulus' package, both its size and structure were inadequate to offset the enormous decline in aggregate demand. The fall in household wealth by the end of 2008 reduced the annual level of consumer spending by more than $500 billion. The drop in home building subtracted another $200 billion from GDP. The total GDP shortfall was therefore more than $700 billion. The Obama stimulus package that started at less than $300 billion in 2009 and reached a maximum of $400 billion in 2010 wouldn't have been big enough to fill the $700 billion annual GDP gap even if every dollar of the stimulus raised GDP by a dollar.
In fact, each dollar of extra deficit added much less than a dollar to GDP. Experience shows that the most cost-effective form of temporary fiscal stimulus is direct government spending. The most obvious way to achieve that in 2009 was to repair and replace the military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan that would otherwise have to be done in the future. But the Obama stimulus had nothing for the Defense Department. Instead, President Obama allowed the Democratic leadership in Congress to design a hodgepodge package of transfers to state and local governments, increased transfers to individuals, temporary tax cuts for lower-income taxpayers, etc. So we got a bigger deficit without economic growth.
A second cause of the continued economic weakness is the president's emphasis on increasing tax rates. Although Mr. Obama grudgingly agreed to continue the Bush tax cuts for 2011 and 2012, his budget this year repeated his call for higher tax rates on upper-income individuals and multinational corporations. With that higher-tax cloud hanging over them, it is not surprising that individuals and businesses do not make the entrepreneurial investments and business expansions that would cause a solid recovery.
A third problem stems from the administration's lack of an explicit plan to deal with future budget deficits and with the exploding national debt. This creates uncertainty about future tax increases and interest rates that impedes spending by households and investment by businesses. The national debt has jumped to 69% of GDP this year, from 40% in 2008. It is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reach more than 85% by the end of the decade, and to keep rising after that. The reality is even worse since ObamaCare alone will cost more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years. The president's boast that his health legislation would not 'add a dime' to the national debt was possible only by combining that increased spending with proposed new taxes and with projected cuts in Medicare spending that will never occur.
Finally, there is the administration's incoherent position on the international value of the dollar. The Treasury repeats the slogan that 'a strong dollar is good for America' while watching the real value of the dollar fall by 7% over the past year, and while urging the Chinese to allow the dollar to fall more quickly relative to the yuan. The lack of a consistent dollar policy adds to the uncertainty that limits business investment and hiring.
The economy will continue to suffer until there is a coherent and favorable economic policy. That means bringing long-term deficits under control without raising marginal tax rates -- by cutting government outlays and by limiting the tax expenditures that substitute for direct government spending. It means lower tax rates on businesses and individuals to spur entrepreneurship and investment. And it means reforming Social Security and Medicare to protect the living standards of future retirees while limiting the cost to future taxpayers.
All of these things are doable. But the Obama administration has not done them and shows no inclination to do them in the future.

 
 
QE 2.5來了，QE 3還遠嗎？

QE2吹起的一個大泡沫 

2011/05/27 11:18 華爾街日報

Christine Lagarde will lead the IMF
Jun 28th 2011, 17:54 by R.A. |WASHINGTON
THE International Monetary Fund has announced its selection of Christine Lagarde, currently the French finance minister, as its new managing director. Ms Lagarde bested the head of Mexico's central bank, Agustín Carstens, in the contest to lead the IMF. Her victory was assured when she earned the backing of America and China early this week. Ms Lagarde's term will begin on July 5.

The opportunity for Europe’s leaders to avoid disaster is shrinking fast
Jun 23rd 2011 | from the print edition
  

個人覺得寫的還不錯...
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
「後金融危機時代」的三個麻煩
【經濟日報╱社論】2011.06.28 02:22 am

是否會走入大蕭條?...我真希望不會。 
美媒:即便是中國也躲不過大蕭條
2011年05月09日 08:41   來源：環球時報   

Why It's Time To Buy

The Clouds Haven't Quite Parted, But the Long-Term Case for Home Ownership Is Looking Stronger

By RUTH SIMON and JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG

Back in June 2006, when the housing market peaked, the prospect of a five-year national housing bust seemed unimaginable to most people. And yet here we are, with the latest Standard & Poor's Case-Shiller index showing that prices hit new bear-market lows, falling back to 2002 levels nationally and to 1990s levels in some battered regions.

Despite all the gloom, however, there are growing indications that it is a good time to buy. Mortgage rates, which fell to 4.55% for the week ending June 2, according to Freddie Mac, are near 50-year lows. Homes have become more affordable than they have been in years: According to Moody's Analytics, the ratio of home prices to income is now 20.9% lower than the 15-year average through 2010, and 12.5% lower than the 1989-2004 average. A historic glut of homes, meanwhile, has created a buyer's market: There were about 15 million vacant homes in the U.S. last year, according to John Burns Real Estate ConsultingInc.—some 3.1 million more than normal.

Such conditions might not last long. Moody's Analytics predicts that the number of distressed sales will begin to fall in 2013, and that prices will begin to edge upward then. Home building is at a virtual standstill, so the supply overhang isn't likely to get much worse. Meanwhile, demographic indicators such as "household formation"—the number of new households each year—are on the rise, and promise to take a bite out of the glut in coming years.

The upshot: "While we might not see rapid growth in the next couple of years, there are a tremendous number of positive signs that could lead to a rebound," says Anthony Sanders, a real-estate finance professor at George Mason University.

The short-term outlook isn't encouraging. Job growth remains weak, foreclosure sales are making up more of the market, and economists are predicting that home prices will fall more in the coming months.

But the long-term benefits of homeownership remain very much intact. For now, at least, you can deduct the mortgage interest on your taxes—a big perk for people in higher tax brackets. You get to paint your walls any color you wish, without having to clear it with a landlord. And assuming you can buy a home for about the same price as you can rent one, buying will give you the ability one day to live rent-free. Come retirement time, a paid-off mortgage means your monthly expenses are significantly reduced, and you have a chunk of equity to play with.

So what might the next five years look like? Once the foreclosure mess begins to clear up, say housing economists, the traditional drivers of the housing market—demographics, affordability, loan availability, employment and psychology—should take over.

Here is a glimmer of what the future may hold: While overall home prices fell by 7.5% in April over the same period a year earlier, according to CoreLogic, a Santa Ana, Calif., provider of real-estate data and analytics, if you exclude distressed sales, prices were off just 0.5%. So if you are in a market that isn't battered by foreclosures, you may be close to a bottom already.

"The regular marketplace is hanging tough," says CoreLogic chief economist Mark Fleming.

Here is a look at five key factors that will govern local markets over the next several years:

Demographics

Household formation fell during the economic downturn as a weak economy led some people to stay in school, double up with roommates or move in with family members. According to Moody's Analytics, the number of new households renting or owning a home dropped to 578,000 in 2008 from nearly 2 million in 2005, just before the peak of the housing boom.

But household formation increased to nearly 950,000 last year, says Moody's, and should average 1.2 million over the next decade.

That, combined with increased obsolescence and higher demand for second homes, should begin sopping up excess inventory in much of the country over the next two years, Moody's says.

"Whatever the excess supply of housing is, it is shrinking pretty fast," says Thomas Lawler, an independent housing economist.

Some of the uptick in household formation is likely to come from the leading edge of the echo baby boomers, who have been waiting for the economy to recover before striking out on their own, says William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution. That is likely to fuel an increase in demand for both rental apartments and starter homes.

The portion of people moving across the country has fallen to the lowest level since World War II, he adds. That is a sign that many people have put their lives on hold because of the weak economy.

"When things do pick up, there will be this pent-up demand for everything involved with starting a household," Mr. Frey says.

Of course, when prices in healthier regions begin to rise, many would-be sellers who have sat on the sidelines could begin putting homes on the market, muting the price gains at first, says Susan Wachter, a professor of real estate and finance at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. Even so, she expects home prices to stabilize and begin to strengthen over the next two or three years.

There also are some powerful demographic cross-currents worth considering. The first baby boomers turned 65 in January, an age when demand for new homes falls and many begin to think about downsizing. "The baby-boom generation pushed prices up as they got older," says Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography at the University of Southern California. But in the coming years, "boomers will start flooding the market on the supply side" with larger homes, while fueling new demand for smaller properties with more services and amenities.

Affordability

Rising home prices made renting cheaper than buying in many parts of the country. But that dynamic has begun to change: Housing affordability, as measured by the ratio of median home prices to median household incomes, has fallen below pre-housing bubble levels in just over two-thirds of the country, according to an analysis of more than 380 metro areas by Moody's Analytics.

Renting is still cheaper than buying in most markets, but rising rents and falling house prices mean that, in some areas, this won't be the case for long. Buying a home is already cheaper than renting in Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit and Orlando, Fla., according to Moody's Analytics. In other markets, including Dallas, Las Vegas and Sacramento, Cailf., the equation is likely to soon turn in favor of homeownership if current trends persist, the firm says.

In Ann Arbor, Mich., where home prices fell 11.2% between 2007 and 2010, according to Fiserv Case-Shiller, housing affordability has risen well above historical levels, according to Moody's Analytics.

That is good news for home buyers such as Steven Upton, a 42-year-old photographer, who in June will close on four-bedroom brick house on 10 acres in an upscale community in Ann Arbor. Mr. Upton paid $400,000 for the home, which previously listed for $600,000. "It's a tremendous deal," he says.

Before buying a house, it is wise to compare rental prices for similar properties. To be ultraconservative, wait until the monthly outlays, including taxes and insurance, are equal. You also could factor in the tax savings of owning, which would make buying more attractive even if the gross monthly outlay is slightly higher.

Employment

The strength of the housing market depends largely on the economy. Rising incomes and increased employment tend to give more would-be buyers confidence and buying power. For now, job growth remains sluggish: On Friday the Labor Department reported that just 54,000 jobs were created in May, far below expectations.

But signs of how a stronger job market could fuel housing demand are evident in the Dallas metro area, which added 83,100 new jobs in the 12 months ending in April—the largest gain in the nation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Dallas never had a big housing boom or bust and has benefited from trade with Mexico, a strong telecommunications sector and a central location.

The opportunities for a job with more responsibility drew Duane and Linda Elmer to Dallas from Des Moines, Iowa, where Mr. Elmer was a banker for nine years. The couple has agreed to pay $415,000 for a four-bedroom, four-bath house with a Jacuzzi and pool. Their Des Moines home, purchased nine years ago for $410,000, is on the market for $390,000. "We are willing to take the loss for the opportunity to live in a more diverse community and to take a job with greater breadth of responsibilities," Mr. Elmer says.

Borrowers like the Elmers who are relocating for job opportunities are a big driver of home sales in nearby Plano, Texas, says Harry Ridge, a real-estate agent. He says such sales accounted for 20% of his business last year.

A similar influx of job seekers is fueling housing demand in the Washington area, where 25,700 new jobs were added in the 12 months since April 2010. Washington was the only one of the 20 cities tracked by Standard & Poor's and Case-Shiller that saw home prices rise both on a month-to-month and year-over-year basis.

Credit

Mortgage financing remains plentiful for borrowers with good credit scores and solid employment histories. But for borrowers who don't fit traditional lending standards, getting a loan can still be nearly impossible. In the first quarter, about 10% of banks tightened standards for nontraditional loans, according to the Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, higher down-payment standards are locking some would-be buyers out of the market. Just 35% of renters have the minimum 3.5% down payment needed for an FHA loan on the median-priced home in their market, according to a recent survey by Zelman Associates.

Credit is likely to remain tight for at least the next six months, says Clifford Rossi, a former Citigroup Inc. consumer-lending executive who teaches at the University of Maryland.

But conditions should improve over time, he says: "There's no question that it will gradually get easier."

That will be welcome news to borrowers like Greg Silver. The 50-year-old real-estate developer would like to buy a second home, but hasn't been able to secure a jumbo mortgage because his income consists of capital gains from sales of the properties he develops. Mr. Silver closed three sales in the past 12 months, netting him a total of more than $25 million, but didn't record any capital gains in 2008 and 2009. Sure, he could use some of that cash to buy a home outright, but he would prefer to mortgage it, get the tax deduction and keep his cash free for business purposes.

"It's a little devastating," says Mr. Silver, who is living in Greenwich, Conn.

Psychology

The long-term case for buying over renting remains in force. Yet nowadays, "People are simply scared," says Aaron Galvin, chief executive of Luxury Living Chicago, which finds rental apartments for wealthy clients.

Mr. Galvin says he has seen a 30% increase in business in the last year, driven by would-be home buyers who can afford to purchase a property but are choosing not to do so.

The portion of Americans who believe homeownership is a safe investment dropped to 66% in the first quarter from 83% in 2006, according to Fannie Mae, the government-controlled mortgage company.

But it isn't clear whether the fear will result in a prolonged change in attitudes, as during the Great Depression, or have little long-term impact, as was the case for the housing bust that shook California and the Northeast in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Eighty-seven percent of people surveyed by Fannie Mae said they preferred owning to renting, though access to schools, control over one's environment and other quality-of-life issues now are seen as the key benefits of homeownership, with building wealth and other financial factors viewed as less important. In addition, 67% of renters surveyed by Zelman Associates said they planned to buy a home in the next five years.

Jeffrey Connor may be a bellwether for the future of the housing market. The 40-year-old finance director at a corporate law firm says he thought briefly about buying a house when he moved to Chicago from Washington in October. But he opted instead to rent a luxury two-story apartment in downtown Chicago for $3,559 a month. Mr. Connor says it will take substantial job growth and a sharp drop in foreclosures to convince him to buy.

"The market is clearly soft," he says, "especially when we consider it good news that the unemployment rate is hovering around 9% instead of 10%." Mr. Connor says he isn't worried about missing out on today's low interest rates and will consider buying once unemployment falls to 6%.

Other buyers are showing less willingness to wait for the absolute perfect time to buy. Doug Yearly, chief executive of luxury builder Toll Brothers Inc., told investors in May that "some of our clients, after waiting so long, are starting to move off the fence and into the market, motivated by attractive pricing, low interest rates and, most important, the desire to take the next step in their lives. The family with elementary-school kids and a puppy when the housing debacle began five years ago now has middle-school kids and the dog weighs 80 pounds."

Source:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576361522020024248.html#